Jun 20

OECD – Closing date of the public consultations on the scope of the future revision of Chapter IV and Chapter VII of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines

More information on this consultation can be found here

Jun 20

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-108/17, Enteco Baltic (VAT – VAT Exemption for importation followed by an exempt intra-Community supply – Goods dispatched or transported from a third country to a Member State other than the Member State of arrival)

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is Article 143(2) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting a tax authority of a Member State from refusing to apply the exemption provided for in Article 143(1)(d) of that directive solely because at the time of importation the goods were planned to be supplied to one VAT payer and therefore its VAT identification number was specified in the import declaration, but later, after a change in circumstances, the goods were transported to another taxable person (VAT payer) and the public authority was provided with full information about the identity of the actual purchaser?

2. In circumstances such as those of the present case, can Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that documents that have not been disproved (e-AD [electronic administrative document] consignment notes and e-ROR [electronic report of receipt] confirmations) confirming transport of the goods from a tax warehouse in the territory of one Member State to a tax warehouse in another Member State may be regarded as sufficient proof of transportation of the goods to another Member State?

3. Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting a tax authority of a Member State from refusing to apply the exemption provided for in that provision if the right of disposal was transferred to the purchaser of the goods not directly, but via the persons specified by it (transport undertakings/tax warehouses)?

4. Does an administrative practice conflict with the principle of neutrality of VAT and of the protection of legitimate expectations where under that practice the interpretation differs as to what is to be regarded as a transfer of the right of disposal, and as to what evidence must be submitted to substantiate such a transfer, according to whether Article 167 or Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive is applicable?

5. Does the scope of the principle of good faith in relation to the levying of VAT also encompass the right of persons to exemption from import VAT (under Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive) in cases such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, where the customs office denies the right of a taxable person to exemption from import VAT on the basis that the conditions for further supply of goods within the European Union (Article 138 of the VAT Directive) were not complied with?

6. Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as prohibiting an administrative practice of Member States under which the assumption that (i) the right of disposal was not transferred to a specific contractual partner and (ii) that the taxpayer knew or could have known about possible VAT fraud committed by the contractual partner is based on the fact that the undertaking communicated with the contractual partners by electronic means of communication and that it was established when the investigation was carried out by a tax authority that the contractual partners did not operate at the addresses specified and did not declare the VAT on the transactions with the taxable person?

7. Is Article 143(1)(d) of the VAT Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, although the duty to substantiate the right to a tax exemption falls on the taxpayer, this does not, however, mean that the competent public authority deciding the issue of transfer of the right of disposal has no obligation to collect information accessible only to public authorities?

The opinion in this case as delivered on March 22, 2018 by Advocate General Mengozzi can be found here

Jun 21

CJEU expected to deliver judgment in Case C-480/16, Fidelity Funds (Freedom to provide services – Taxation of undertakings for collective investment)

Question referred for a preliminary ruling:

Is a tax regime, such as that in the main proceedings, under which non-Danish undertakings for collective investment covered by Council Directive [85/611] are taxed at source on dividends from Danish companies, contrary to Article 56 EC (Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital or Article 49 EC (Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services, where equivalent Danish undertakings for collective investment can obtain an exemption for tax at source, either because they in fact make a minimum distribution to their members in return for retention of tax at source, or technically a minimum distribution is calculated, on which tax at source is retained in relation to the undertakings’ members?

More information on the opinion in this case as delivered on December 20, 2017 by Advocate General Mengozzi can be found here

Jun 22

Meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs (ECOFIN) Council

According to Agenda highlights published on the Council’s website, the ministers will be called on to agree modifications to the VAT system. They are also due to approve a directive on the VATstandard rate and measures to boost administrative cooperation in order to prevent VAT fraud.