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

Case C-228/05
14 September 2006
Stradasfalti Srl – Agenzia delle Entrate-Ufficio di Trento
1. The first sentence of Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive [...]
requires the Member States, in order to respect the procedural
obligation of consultation laid down by Article 29 of that
Directive, to inform the Advisory Committee on VAT established
by that article that they intend to adopt a national
measure derogating from the general system of deducting
VAT and to provide that committee with sufficient information
to enable it to examine the measure in full knowledge of the
facts.
2. The first sentence of Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive [...]
must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to
exclude goods from the system of deducting VAT without first
consulting the Advisory Committee on VAT established by
Article 29 of that Directive. Nor does that provision authorise
a Member State to adopt measures excluding goods from the
system of deducting that tax which contain no indication as to
their limitation in time and/or which form part of a body of
structural adjustment measures whose aim is to reduce the
budget deficit and allow State debt to be repaid.
3. In so far as an exception from the system of deductions has
not been established in accordance with Article 17(7) of the
Sixth Directive, the national tax authorities may not rely as
against a taxable person on a provision derogating from the
principle of the right to deduct VAT set out in Article 17(1) of
that Directive. A taxable person which has been subject to
that derogating provision must be able to recalculate its VAT
debt in accordance with Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive
[...], in so far as the goods and services have been used for
the purposes of taxable transactions.
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-128/05
28 September 2006
Commission of the European Communities – Republic of
Austria
1. By allowing taxable persons not established in Austria who
transport passengers there not to submit tax return forms
and not to pay the net amount of VAT when their annual
turnover in Austria is below EUR 22 000, in that case deeming
the amount of VAT due to be equal to the amount of
deductible VAT and making application of the simplified rules
contingent on Austrian VAT not appearing on invoices or in
other documents serving as invoices, the Republic of Austria
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18(1)(a) and
(2) and 22(3) to (5) of the Sixth Directive [...];
2. The action as to the remainder is dismissed;
3. The Republic of Austria is ordered to pay the costs.
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-475/03
3 October 2006
Banca popolare di Cremona Soc. coop. arl – Agenzia
Entrate Ufficio Cremona
Article 33 of the Sixth Directive [...], as amended by Directive
91/680/EEC [...], must be interpreted as meaning that it does
not preclude the maintenance of a charge to tax with the charac-
1)
teristics of the tax at issue in the main proceedings .
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published
1)
IRAP is a tax charged on the net value of the production of an undertaking
in a given period. Its basis of assessment is the difference appearing in
the profit and loss account between the 'value of production' and the
'production costs' as defined by Italian legislation. It includes elements,
such as variation in stocks, amortisation and depreciation, which have no
direct connection with the supply of goods or services as such.
The Court has established the essential characteristics of VAT:
– it applies generally to transactions relating to goods or services;
– it is proportional to the price charged by the taxable person in return
for the goods and services which he has supplied;
– it is charged at each stage of the production and distribution process,
including that of retail sale, irrespective of the number of transactions
which have previously taken place;
– the amounts paid during the preceding stages of the process are
deducted from the tax payable by a taxable person, with the result
that the tax applies, at any given stage, only to the value added at that
stage and the final burden of the tax rests ultimately on the consumer.
Judgments of the Court of Justice – 38
© 2006 IBFD
Joined Cases C-290/05 and C-333/05
5 October 2006
Ákos Nádasdi – Vám-és Pénzügy rség Észak-Alföldi Regionális
Parancsnoksága and
Ilona Németh – Vám-és Pénzügy rség Dél-Alföldi Regionális
Parancsnoksága
1-2.
3. Article 33 of the Sixth Directive does not preclude the levy of
a tax such as that imposed by the Law on registration duty for
which turnover is not the basis of assessment and which does
not give rise, in trade between Member States, to formalities
connected with the crossing of frontiers.
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-240/05
7 December 2006
Eurodental Sàrl – Administration de l'enregistrement et des
domaines
A transaction which is exempt from VAT within the territory of a
Member State under Article 13(A)(1)(e) of the Sixth Directive
[...], as amended by Council Directives 91/680/EEC and
92/111/EEC, does not give rise to the right to deduct input VAT
pursuant to Article 17(3)(b) of that Directive, even when it is an
intra-Community transaction, and regardless of the system of
VAT applicable in the Member State of destination.
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C-13/06
7 December 2006
Commission of the European Communities – Hellenic
Republic
1. By levying VAT on services consisting in road assistance in
the event of a breakdown, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive
[...];
2. The Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published
Case C 401/05
14 December 2006
VDP Dental Laboratory NV – Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Article 13(A)(1)(e) of the Sixth Directive [...], as amended by
Directive 95/7/EC [...], must be interpreted as meaning that it
does not apply to supplies of dental prostheses effected by an
intermediary like the one in question in the main proceedings
who does not have the status of dentist or dental technician, but
has acquired such prostheses from a dental technician.
[2006]ECR I-not yet officially published