Jeroen Bijl, EU VAT Specialist (PhD), EY NL CP&R VAT Leader, Assistant Professor at Leiden University, Hon. Judge (Court of Appeal) about the pending Case C-605/20 (Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal)
According to the business that incurred the repair costs, recharging these costs does not constitute consideration for a supply, simply because no supply was made. The costs were recharged without any mark-up. The only reason that the costs were incurred by the Portuguese business is because it wanted a quick solution for solving the issues created by the faulty products it purchased from the manufacturer, a group company, and sold to its customers.
The Portuguese tax authorities disagree. They argue that the payment should be qualified as a consideration for services provided by the Portuguese business to the manufacturer of the goods, amongst other things because the repair was based on a separate agreement, and because the Portuguese business, instead of ‘making a claim’ to have the components replaced, undertook to repair the blades and to import new components himself.
Source: LinkedIn
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- ECJ C-280/25 (Lin II) – Judgment – EU law defines serious fraud, overrides national leniency, respects res judicata
- ECJ VAT Case: C-413/26 (Prodalco Mat) – Order – Removed from the register of the Court
- CJEU Fact Sheet: The deduction of value added tax
- CJEU Research Note: Application of the VAT system to the activity of members of the board of directors of a public limited company
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”VAT Grouping” (Art. 11 of EU VAT Directive)
