Oct 10

10.00 CET

Meeting of the EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council

During the meeting the Ministers will a.o. hear a presentation by the Commission about its proposed strategy for digital taxation, aimed at closing off loopholes that leave digital companies largely untaxed. The Commission will also present a proposal on rules for a definitive VAT system, aimed at making it more simple, fraud-proof and business-friendly.

Click here to download the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL - A Fair and Efficient Tax System in the European Union for the Digital Single Market from September 21, 2017

Click here to download the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE On the follow-up to the Action Plan on VAT Towards a single EU VAT area - Time to act from October 4. 2017.

Oct 12

10.00 – 12.30 CET

Meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee of Inquiry into Money Laundering Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion (PANA Committee)

A live webcast of the meeting will be available here

The PANA Committee is going to consider of amendments to the draft report and recommendation.

·   Draft report (conclusions)

·   Part II of the draft report - Overview of activities during the mandate of the PANA Committee

·   Amendments to the draft report (1 to 313)

·   Amendments to the draft report (314 to 667)

·   Draft motion for Parliament recommendation

·   Amendments to the draft recommendation (1 to 376)

·   Amendments to the draft recommendation (377 to 783)

Oct 12

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-661/15, X (The interpretation of Articles 29 and 78 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling: 

1. 

(a)   Should Article 145(2) of the implementing regulation, read in conjunction with Article 29(1) and (3) of the Customs Code, be interpreted as meaning that the rule laid down therein also applies in a case where it is established that, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for specific goods, there was a manufacture-related risk that a component of the goods might become defective during use, and in view of this the seller, pursuant to a contractual warranty towards the buyer, grants the latter a price reduction in the form of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the buyer in modifying the goods in order to exclude that risk? 

(b)   In the event that the rule laid down in Article 145(2) of the implementing regulation does not apply in the case referred to above, are the provisions of Article 29(1) and (3) of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 78 of the Customs Code, sufficient, without more, to reduce the declared customs value after the aforementioned price reduction has been granted? 

2.     Is the condition laid down in Article 145(3) of the implementing regulation for adjustment of the customs value referred to therein, namely that the adjustment of the price actually paid or payable for the goods must have been made within a period of twelve months following the date of acceptance of the declaration for entry to free circulation, contrary to the provisions of Articles 78 and 236 of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with Article 29 of [that code]?

The Opinion of the Advocate General in this case can be found here

Oct 12

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-262/16, Shields & Sons Partnership (VAT – Article 296(2) and Article 299 of Directive 2006/112/EC)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

(1)   With regard to the common flat-rate scheme for farmers which is established by Chapter 2 of Title XII of [Directive 2006/112], is Article 296(2) [of that directive] to be interpreted as providing an exhaustive regime as to when a Member State is able to exclude a farmer from [that] scheme? In particular:

(1.1)  Is a Member State only able to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers pursuant to Article 296(2) [of Directive 2006/112]?

(1.2)  Is a Member State also able to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers using Article 299 of that directive?

(1.3)  Does the principle of fiscal neutrality give a Member State a right to exclude a farmer from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers?

(1.4)  Do Member States have an entitlement to exclude farmers from the common flat-rate scheme for farmers on any other grounds?

(2)   How is the term “categories of farmers” in Article 296(2) of [Directive 2006/112] to be interpreted? In particular:

(2.1)  Must a relevant category of farmers be capable of being identified by reference to objective characteristics?

(2.2)  Can a relevant category of farmers be capable of being identified by reference to economic considerations?

(2.3)  What level of precision is required in identifying a category of farmers which a Member State has purported to exclude?

(2.4)  Does it entitle a Member State to treat as a relevant category “farmers who are found to be recovering substantially more as members of the flat-rate scheme than they would if they were registered for VAT”?

The Opinion of the Advocate General in this case can be found here

Oct 12

Opinion of the Advocate General expected to be delivered in Case C-396/16, T – 2 (VAT – Insolvency – does an arrangement with creditors be treated as a change in the factors used to determine the amount of input VAT to be deducted?)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1)     Should the reduction of the obligations on the basis of an arrangement with creditors, as in the main proceedings, which has been approved by judicial decree and has acquired the force of res judicata be treated as a change in the factors used to determine the amount of input VAT to be deducted, within the meaning of Article 185(1) of the VAT Directive, or should it be treated as a different situation, in which the deduction is higher or lower than that to which the taxable person was entitled, within the meaning of Article 184 of the VAT Directive?

2)     Should the reduction of the obligations on the basis of an arrangement with creditors, as in the main proceedings, which has been approved by judicial decree and has acquired the force of res judicata be regarded as a (partial) non-payment of a transaction, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 185(2) of the VAT Directive?

3)     Must a Member State, taking into account the requirements of clarity and certainty in legal situations imposed by the EU legislature and having regard for Article 186 of the VAT Directive, lay down, for the purpose of requiring adjustment of the deduction in the event of failure to make complete or partial payment, as permitted by the second subparagraph of Article 185(2) of that directive, detailed rules, in national law, to cover cases of non-payment, or may it include, in those rules, an arrangement with creditors approved by judicial decree which has acquired the force of res judicata (should this come within the concept of non-payment)?

Oct 13

Closing date for submitting input on its public consultation on key issues identified in a request for input related to the tax challenges raised by digitalisation and the potential options to address these challenges

More information in this Public Consultation can found here