European Court of Justice VAT cases 2006-3 - empcom.gov.in

invoiced; and
S the purchaser repays to the finance company a sum equal to
the price advertised and invoiced,
the taxable amount for purposes of calculating the VAT payable
on that sale consists of the full amount payable by the purchaser.
[2001] ECR I-3833
Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99
17 May 2001
Hans-Georg Fischer S Finanzamt Burgsdorf
Klaus Brandenstein S Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann
1. Where a taxable person allocates for purposes other than
those of the business goods (in this case a motor vehicle) on
the acquisition of which VAT was not deductible and which,
after being acquired, had value-added-tax-deductible work
done on them, the VAT payable under Article 5(6) of the Sixth
Directive [...] applies solely to the “component parts” of the
goods in respect of which there was entitlement to deduct,
namely the components which definitively lost their physical
and economic distinctiveness when they were incorporated in
the vehicle, after its purchase, following transactions involving
supplies of goods which led to a lasting increase in the value
of the vehicle which has not been entirely consumed at the
time of the allocation.
2. In the case of an allocation which is taxable under Article 5(6)
of the Sixth Directive, in particular the allocation of goods (in
this case a motor vehicle)
S which were acquired without any entitlement to deduct,
S on which work giving entitlement to deduct has been
carried out, resulting in the incorporation of “component
parts” in the goods,
the taxable amount for the purposes of Article 11(A)(1)(b) of
the Sixth Directive must be determined with reference to the
price, at the time of the allocation, of the goods incorporated
in the vehicle which constitute component parts of the goods
allocated, within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that Directive.
3. Where work which is carried out on goods (in this case a
motor vehicle) after their purchase and on which input VAT
was deducted does not give rise to liability for VAT pursuant
to Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive when the vehicle is allocated,
the VAT deducted in respect of that work must be
adjusted in accordance with Article 20(1)(b) of that Directive if
the value of the work in question has not been entirely consumed
in the context of the business activity of the taxable
person before the vehicle is allocated to his private assets.
[2001] ECR I-4049
Case C-86/99
29 May 2001
Freemans plc S Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Upon a proper construction of Article 11(A)(3)(b) and (C)(1) of
the Sixth Directive [...], the taxable amount in respect of goods
supplied by mail order from a catalogue to a customer for the
customer's own use where the supplier allows the customer a
discount from the catalogue price, a separate account being
credited in the customer's favour with the amount of that discount
as and when instalment payments are paid to the supplier -
a discount which may then be immediately withdrawn or used in
another way by the customer - is the full catalogue price of the
goods sold to the customer, reduced accordingly by the amount
of that discount at the time when it is withdrawn or used in
another way by the customer.
[2001] ECR I-4167
Case C-345/99
14 June 2001
Commission of the European Communities – French
Republic
1)
– The application is dismissed;
– The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to
pay the costs;
– The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is
ordered to bear its own costs.
[2001] ECR I-4493
1)
The Commission claimed that by applying to vehicles used by taxable
persons carrying on the activity of driving instructors the condition that,
in order for such persons to be able to exercise their right to deduct the
Judgments of the Court of Justice – 22
© 2006 IBFD
VAT charged on the initial acquisition of those vehicles, they must be
used exclusively for that activity, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive.
Case C-40/00
14 June 2001
Commission of the European Communities – French
Republic
1. By reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total prohibition on
the right to deduct VAT on diesel used as fuel for vehicles on
the purchase of which no VAT is deductible, after having
introduced a partial right to deduct, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2) of the Sixth
Directive [...], in the version resulting from Directive 95/7/EC
[...].
2. The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
[2001] ECR I-4539
Case C-380/99
3 July 2001
Bertelsmann AG S Finanzamt Wiedenbrück
Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive [...], is to be interpreted
as meaning that the taxable amount for the supply of a bonus in
kind constituting consideration for the introduction of a new
customer includes, besides the purchase price of that bonus, the
costs of delivery, when they are paid by the supplier of the
bonus.
[2001] ECR I-5163
Case C-102/00
12 July 2001
Welthgrove BV S Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Involvement of a holding company in the management of its
subsidiaries must be regarded as an economic activity within the
meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive [...], only in so far
as it entails carrying out transactions which are subject to VAT
by virtue of Article 2 of that Directive.
[2001] ECR I-5679
Case C-16/00
27 September 2001
Cibo Participations SA S Directeur régional des impôts du
Nord-Pas-de-Calais
1. Involvement of a holding company in the management of the
companies that it participates in constitutes an economic
activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive
[...], in so far as it entails carrying out transactions which
are subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 of this Directive, such
as the provision of administrative, financial, commercial and
technical services by the holding company for the benefit of
its subsidiaries.
2. The expenses that a holding company incurs on services used
for the acquisition of shares in a subsidiary form part of its
general expenses and have in principle a direct and immediate
link with the whole of its economic activities. Where the
holding company effects both transactions in respect of which
the right to deduct input tax exists and transactions in respect
of which that right does not exist, it follows from Article
17(5), first paragraph of the Sixth Directive that it is only
entitled to deduct the proportion of the tax which is attributable
to the amount of the former transactions.
3. The receipt of dividends does not fall within the scope of VAT.
[2001] ECR I-6663
Case C-326/99
4 October 2001
Stichting 'Goed Wonen' S Staatssecretaris van Financiën
1. On a proper construction of Article 5(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive
[...], it does not preclude adoption of a national provision,
such as Article 3(2) of the 'Wet houdende vervanging van de
bestaande omzetbelasting door een omzetbelasting volgens
het stelsel van heffing over de toegevoegde waarde' (Law
replacing turnover tax by the system of taxing added value)
of 28 June 1968, as amended by the 'Wet ter bestrijding van
constructies met betrekking tot onroerende zaken' (Law to
prevent artificial arrangements relating to immovable property)
of 18 December 1995, whereby classification as a 'sup-