Conclusion of the author:
The author argues that both the legislative framework test and the purpose test are not met by Article 9a IR. The wording of the amendments introduced by Article 9a IR, which have been described by the FTT judge Anne Scott as introducing a “sea change” to Article 28 PVD (see para.144 of Fenix), in conjunction with the fiscal policy purpose of Article 9a IR, seem to suggest that in passing this formally implementing measure the lawmaker has incurred in a manifest error, which could lead the CJEU to conclude that the provision is invalid.
Source Rivista Diritto Tributario
See also
