Moving goods to another Member State – will we see a more flexible attitude in respect of the formalities?

In the wake of the ruling in favour of VAT deductions based on a non-compliant invoice, the Court of Justice has once again ruled on a case where, in the event of the non-reporting of the VAT identification number in the Member State of destination on the transfer document, the VAT exemption in the Member State of origin cannot be refused (C.o.J. 20 October 2016, case C-24/15, Plöckl).

1. The transfer and the transfer document

For VAT purposes, the transfer from one Member State to another by a taxable party of an article that belongs to its company is on a par with an (exempted) intra-Community delivery in the Member State of origin and with a (taxed) intra-Community purchase in the Member State of destination. It must here be noted that the idea of ‘transfer’ is only applicable within the territory of the EU. If such a movement is from outside the EU or vice versa, then it is still an import or export transaction.The exemption of the equivalent intra-Community delivery in the Member State is subject to a number of formal conditions, such as the creation of a ‘document’, the transfer document. Certain things must be stated on that document.

The Court of Justice has recently ruled that the drafting of such a document where no VAT identification number from the Member State of origin is listed cannot lead to the refusal of the exemption in the Member State of origin for the intra-Community transfer treated as the supply of goods. 

2. The dispute: transfer of a car, but not in accordance with the rules 

Plöckl has a sole tradership in Germany. In the course of 2006 he purchased a car for the purposes of the activities of his business. Later that year he sent the vehicle to a car dealer based in Spain (physically sent it, he did not sell it!) with the intention of selling that car in Spain. The transportation of the car from Germany to Spain is perfectly documented in a CMR bill of lading (also called consignment note), which means there is no debate about the transporting of the car from Germany to Spain. During 2007 the vehicle was effectively sold to a Spanish company by Plöckl.

Plöckl did not register the sale of the car in Germany. In 2007 he did however report an exempted intra-Community supply of goods. During a VAT audit the German tax authorities were of the opinion that Plöckl did not comply with the conditions for an exempted intra-Community supply of goods and that it was one that had to be taxed in Germany. In the first instance the courts rejected this claim, because it found that, at the time of sale, the vehicle was already in Spain. 
After that the German tax authorities changed tack by adopting the view that the act of transferring the vehicle to Spain was subject to German VAT (and that the exemption was not applicable) because Plöckl had not reported a VAT identification number in Spain, and had consequently not provided the required proof.
In Germany the exemption for the transfer (treated as an intra-Community supply of goods) is subject to the formal condition that the VAT identification number of the taxable party is reported on the transfer document in the Member State of destination/arrival.
It was this latter point that, after much peregrinations, was presented to the Court of Justice for a ruling.

3. Court of Justice: substance over form?

The Court of Justice started by recalling that the principle of fiscal neutrality requires that VAT exemption must be granted when the substantive conditions for the exemption are met, even if the taxable party has not complied with certain formal requirements (such as the obligation to state the VAT identification number for the exemption of an intra-Community supply of goods). The same holds with respect to the obligation to list the VAT identification number of the taxable party allocated by the Member State of destination for an intra-Community transfer. If the VAT identification number is recorded this acts as proof that the transfer was performed for the purposes of the economic activity of the taxable party and that that party acts as such in the Member State of destination. The Court reasoned that the capacity of the taxable party is not dependent on whether or not the party concerned has a VAT identification number. The Court consequently found that the provision of the VAT identification number does not constitute a substantive condition for the VAT exemption of the intra-Community transfer…

4. But is this always the case?

The consequence of this logic pursued by the Court of Justice is that VAT exemption for an intra-Community transfer cannot in principle be refused on the grounds that the taxable party did not provide the VAT identification number allocated to it by the Member State of destination. However, this argument is not applicable in the event of the taxable party deliberately participating in tax evasion and thus jeopardising the operation of the common system of VAT or when noncompliance with a formal requirement prevents the production of proof that the substantive conditions were satisfied.

In another context, the Court of Justice has previously already ruled that the VAT exemption for intra-Community transfers cannot be refused when the supplier, acting in good faith and after having done all that can reasonably be expected of it, is still unable to furnish the VAT identification number of the buyer. So does that mean that exemption can still be refused if a taxable party has not taken all steps that can reasonably be expected of it? 

In response to this the Court of Justice stated that the preceding cannot be considered as a general rule. It is only under a situation where it must be determined whether a taxable party invoking VAT exemption, but is unable to (fully) formally prove such, has or has not participated in tax evasion, that these grounds must be taken into account. The Court reiterated that if, such as in the present case, it is ruled out that the taxable party participated in tax evasion, the VAT exemption cannot be refused, including on the grounds that the taxable party did not do everything that could reasonably be expected in order to comply with the formal VAT obligations, such as the furnishing of the VAT identification number allocated by the Member State of destination!

5. How does the ruling affect Belgian disputes?

The case that was brought before the Court of Justice concerned a dispute involving German formalities for the transfer of goods.
The condition that underlay the dispute in Germany is strictly speaking also applicable in Belgium, because the taxable party that transfers goods from Belgium must also compile a ‘document’ for that purpose. This document, which is required to contain the same statements as an invoice, must contain the following information: ‘…when transfers are at issue as referred to in article 39bis, section 1.4 of the Code … the company name, the address and the VAT identification number that is allocated to the taxable party in the Member State of destination of the goods’.
This ruling consequently provides reasons for avoiding an additional Belgian tax assessment should the VAT number of the Member State of destination not be stated on the transfer document.

The requirement to register gets a broader scope
More entrepreneurs must register with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE)
Under the aim of creating a more attractive business climate, changes were made to the existing company law. In that context, the legislator has done away with the ‘trader’ concept, replacing it with the umbrella term ‘enterprise. Besides forming the basis for the rules of the Code of Economic Law, the Judicial Code and the Civil Code, the new enterprise concept also has consequences for reg
More specific: matrimonial property law
A new compensation obligation in the legal system
What if a spouse practices his profession in a company whose shares all form part of his separate property? The Act of 22 July 2018 has introduced considerable changes to matrimonial property law. This article addresses a specific addition to that law, namely the possible disadvantage incurred by the matrimonial property when a spouse practices their profession through their own company1. 
Changes in the cary proxy and usufruct
Estate planning: recent developments
Over the last few months, we have regularly reported on the important changes in estate planning and inheritance planning. Below is an update of some of those changes.   The care proxy: secure your estate for later The classic example is a person who, due to a physical or mental limitation (e.g. coma, dementia), is – temporarily or permanently – unable to manage their assets properly.
Happy Brexmas?
How to prepare your company for Brexit?
On 10 December 2018, the British Prime Minister decided to postpone the vote on the Brexit deal in the House of Commons. The risk of a ‘no deal’ disaster scenario is increasing. What are the important dates? On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom formally informed the European Council of its intention to leave the EU (according to the procedure provided in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty). C
A popular control structure
The all-powerful manager of a civil-law partnership: was it always a fiction?
The civil-law partnership has long been a popular control structure among wealth planners. In many cases, donors do not want to give up their assets entirely, and still want to retain some control over what they donate. Definitely in cases of transfers of family companies, the donors (often parents or family members) still want to retain control over the course of the business.  The advant
The tax framework
Company subsidies: exempted or not?
Various subsidies were briefly described in the article by our colleagues from Strategy and Operations. They explained that they can assist you and your company with guidance on subsidies, from A to Z.1 In this context, we would like to discuss the tax framework for subsidies: how are awarded subsidies treated tax-wise within companies? Are these subsidies exempt from corporation tax and, if
Right to deduct VAT possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares
The Ryanair ruling
Right to deduct VAT also possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares, if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that VAT on costs incurred during the purchase of shares may be deductible even if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead. As such, the Court of Justice has upheld the principle that the preparatory t
What are the options?
The deduction for investment: an illustration of the options
The deduction for investment allows companies and natural persons who earn profits or benefits to reduce their taxable profits by placing part of the acquisition or investment value of investments in new tangible and intangible fixed assets. Depending on the size of your business and the nature of your activities, you can generally apply the regular, one-off deduction for investment of 20% (tem
Valuation of usufruct
Now also a witch hunt when usufruct is sold?
In previous editions, we have already written about the valuation of usufruct when purchasing property, but recently there have also been regular reports of checks on the valuation of usufruct when reselling. However, up until now, the case law has followed the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Brief description For several years, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the valuation of usufruc
Vlabel is using conciliatory language
Has the decrease in Flemish sales duty led to an increase in the costs for purchases of usufruct?
The decrease in sales duty: also for split purchase usufruct-bare ownership The recent drop in the rate (to 7.00%) for purchases of family homes comes with a number of conditions. For example, the purchaser must be a natural person. Following some uncertainty, it was subsequently confirmed that, in the event of a split purchase of such a property by a company for the usufruct and the bare owner f

Subscribe to our newsletter