News

return to headline page

23 Aug 2010 - Revenue & Customs Brief on reverse charge on emissions allowances

20 Aug 2010 - Longer processing times for Agent Authorisation forms

18 Aug 2010 - First Tier Tax Tribunal Decisions UKFTT 336 to UKFTT 351

17 Aug 2010 - Recent decisions and opinions from the ECJ

11 Aug 2010 - Final stage of compulsory online VAT Returns starts in 2012

09 Aug 2010 - First Tier Tax Tribunal Decisions UKFTT 274 to UKFTT 335

03 Aug 2010 - New notice on correcting VAT errors

Recent decisions and opinions from the ECJ

posted 17 Aug 2010
categories: AGO, Advocate General's Opinion, ECJ Decisions

Astra Zeneca UK (Taxation) [2010] EUECJ C-40/09

Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1) – concept of the supply of services effected for consideration – retail vouchers provided by an undertaking to its employees as part of their remuneration.

The Court ruled:

Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of a retail voucher by a company, which acquired that voucher at a price including value added tax, to its employees in exchange for their giving up part of their cash remuneration constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration within the meaning of that provision.

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C4009.html

Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Jozwiak, Orlowski (anciennement Profaktor Kulesza, Frankowski, Trzaska) (Taxation) [2010] EUECJ C-188/09

Reference for a preliminary ruling – VAT – right to deduct – reduction of the extent of the right to deduct in the event of breach of the obligation to use a cash register

The Court ruled:

The common system of value added tax, as defined in Article 2(1) and (2) of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes and in Articles 2, 10(1) and (2) and 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004, does not preclude a Member State from imposing a temporary restriction on the extent of the right of taxable persons who have not complied with a formal requirement to keep accounting records of their sales to deduct input tax paid, on condition that the sanction thus provided for complies with the principle of proportionality.

Provisions such as those of Article 111(1) and (2) of the Law on the Tax on Goods and Services (ustawa o podatku od towarów i usÅug) of 11 March 2004 are not ‘special measures for derogation’ intended to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2004/7.

Article 33 of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 2004/7, does not preclude the maintenance of provisions such as those of Article 111(1) and (2) of the Law on the Tax on Goods and Services of 11 March 2004.

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C18809.html

Verigen Transplantation Service International (Taxation) [2010] EUECJ C-156/09_O

VAT – place of supply of services – exemptions – removal, multiplication and reimplantation of cartilage cells

The Advocate General concluded that the Court should give the following reply:

On a proper construction of Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the removal of joint cartilage cells from biopsy cartilage material taken from a human being and their subsequent multiplication, with a view to reimplantation for therapeutic purposes, constitute the ‘provision of medical care’, regardless of whether the cells obtained from the cell multiplication are intended for reimplantation in the donor or in another person.

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C15609_O.html