After Reading The Long Anticipated Dong Yang Case C-547/18. Here ...
Agree & Join LinkedIn
By clicking Continue to join or sign in, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
Sign in to view more content
Create your free account or sign in to continue your search
Sign inWelcome back
Email or phone Password Show Forgot password? Sign inor
By clicking Continue to join or sign in, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
New to LinkedIn? Join now
or
New to LinkedIn? Join now
By clicking Continue to join or sign in, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
Skip to main content 2 min readThe Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that a subsidiary does not automatically trigger a VAT permanent establishment (PE) or fixed establishment (FE). I would say nothing shocking, considering that no single EU country is making an automatic link between a subsidiary and the existence of a VAT FE!
However, the CJEU added that a subsidiary may trigger a FE. As opposed to the Advocate General, this statement was made without any "explicit" reference to abuse. There is a reference to the DFDS case (C-260/95), but unfortunately without any additional context. Also in the DFDS case, the CJEU did not explicitly rule that the (risk of) abuse was the “only” trigger for making the subsidiary a FE or that the set-up concerned an abusive practice.
The good news is that the CJEU also ruled that the supplier should not investigate the relationship between a subsidiary and the parent company. As this info is not available to the supplier, this info should be disregarded in the FE assessment by the supplier. Although this case concerned third-party invoicing and many discussions in practice concern intercompany transactions, this is still a very welcoming clarification (whereby an unreasonable burden has been avoided).
In my view, the most important part of the judgement is that the CJEU still requires an analysis of the economic and commercial reality (irrespective of legal form) in view of the FE assessment. In the first instance, the use and nature of the activity should be checked (material conditions). If the doubt remains, the supplier can rely on the formal elements of the transaction (recipient mentioned on the invoice/contract/order).
A long-anticipated case, but a disappointing outcome. It seems that the CJEU opted for the safest and most easy solution. Only addressing the queries raised, without providing much-needed and highly anticipated guidance on the FE concept.
The next FE case on our radar is this Austrian referral (C-931/19). A real estate investor who rents property in another EU Member State and uses third-party resources (property management company) to run his business. Hopefully, this case will help to build a better "VAT" working world :-) So stay tuned
- Copy
- X
- Close menu
- Report this comment
- Close menu
Excellent analysis, I fully agree !
Like Reply 1 Reaction 2 Reactions- Report this comment
- Close menu
Thanks a lot Mo.
Like Reply 1 Reaction 2 Reactions- Report this comment
- Close menu
a top in class commentary! Mo, you have a rare capability of explaining complex ideas clearly!
Like Reply 5 Reactions 6 Reactions- Report this comment
- Close menu
Thanks Mo. Always interested!
Like Reply 2 Reactions 3 Reactions See more commentsTo view or add a comment, sign in
More articles by Mohamed El Kastite
- Know Your Supplier EU VAT ruling - No…
Dec 10, 2021
Know Your Supplier EU VAT ruling - No…
8 Comments
- ECJ ruling C 684/18 (World Comm…
May 29, 2020
ECJ ruling C 684/18 (World Comm…
3 Comments
Explore content categories
- Career
- Productivity
- Finance
- Soft Skills & Emotional Intelligence
- Project Management
- Education
- Technology
- Leadership
- Ecommerce
- User Experience
- Recruitment & HR
- Customer Experience
- Real Estate
- Marketing
- Sales
- Retail & Merchandising
- Science
- Supply Chain Management
- Future Of Work
- Consulting
- Writing
- Economics
- Artificial Intelligence
- Employee Experience
- Workplace Trends
- Fundraising
- Networking
- Corporate Social Responsibility
- Negotiation
- Communication
- Engineering
- Hospitality & Tourism
- Business Strategy
- Change Management
- Organizational Culture
- Design
- Innovation
- Event Planning
- Training & Development
Từ khóa » C-547/18
-
Dong Yang Electronics - CURIA - List Of Results
-
62018CC0547 - EN - EUR-Lex - European Union
-
Dong Yang Electronics (Case C-547/18): Oh Yes, A Subsidiary Can ...
-
ECJ Case C-547/18 (Dong Yang) - Fixed Establishment For VAT
-
CJEU In Dong Yang Case: Subsidiary Could Be A Fixed Establishment ...
-
Request Full-text - ResearchGate
-
Request Full-text - ResearchGate
-
European Court Judgement: Dong Yang Electronics Case
-
CJEU Case Dong Yang: Subsidiary Fixed Establishment For VAT ...
-
VAT: Subsidiaries As Fixed Establishments
-
Dong Yang: CJEU Rules On VAT Fixed Establishment - Tax Journal
-
[PDF] VAT NEWS - BDO Luxembourg
-
[PDF] Case C-547/18, Dong Yang Electronics The CJEU Upholds That A ...