Week of May 10, 2021 – What did we learn from the ECJ (VAT)?

Decisions issued

• ECJ C-844/19 (TechnoRent) – Interest for late VAT refunds despite lack of national provision

New cases – Questions released

• C-194/21 (Staatssecretaris van Financien NL) – Revision of initial deduction if the actual use matches the intended use?

New cases – Questions not released yet

• C-293/21 (Vittamed technologijos vs. LT)
• C-294/21 (État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg and Administration de l’enregistrement and des domaines)

Flashback on ECJ Cases

• C-437/06 (Securenta) – Taxable person who simultaneously carries out, taxed or exempt, economic activities and non-economic activities – Right to deduct input tax paid
• C-18/13 (Maks Pen EOOD) – No right to deduct VAT if a claim is made in case of fraud or abuse

ECJ Activity in the week of May 17, 2021

• Decision in C-4/20 Alti

A Bulgarian referral asking whether Article 205 of the VAT Directive and the principle of proportionality are to be interpreted as meaning that the joint and several liability of a taxable person for a VAT debt, being the recipient of a taxable supply where the supplier has failed to account for VAT, extends to the obligation to pay default interest?

Previous posts about this case can be found HERE

• AG Opinion Joined cases C-45/20 Finanzamt N (Communication de l’affectation) and C-46/20 Finanzamt G (Communication de l’affectation)

A German referral asking whether Article 168(a) of the VAT Directive, read in conjunction with Article 167, conflicts with national law which precludes VAT deduction where a business is entitled to choose the allocation of the costs against private and business use at the time of purchase but a decision on the allocation is not made before the expiry of the deadline for submission of the annual VAT return?

Previous posts about this case can be found HERE

• AG Opinion in C-299/20 Icade Promotion

A French referral asking whether Article 392 of the VAT Directive is to be interpreted as reserving the application of the ‘margin scheme’ to transactions for the supply of immovable property the purchase of which has been subject to VAT, without the taxable person who subsequently resells the property having the right to deduct that tax, or does it permit that scheme to be applied to transactions, the purchase of which has not been subject to VAT, either because that purchase falls outside the scope of VAT or because it falls within the scope of VAT but is exempt?

Previous posts about this case can be found HERE