CJEU case law

• In case C-603/24 Stellantis, the Court of Justice examined the taxability of transfer pricing (TP) adjustments arising from subsequent changes in the prices of delivered vehicles. The manufacturer supplied vehicles to a distributor, with both parties being subject to transfer pricing rules. They had agreed that at the end of each year the vehicle prices would be adjusted according to the distributor’s operating costs related to vehicle repairs in order to ensure that the distributor achieved an appropriate financial result. According to the CJEU, the TP agreement provided does not establish the existence of a legal relationship giving rise to an obligation on the distributor to provide vehicle repair services for consideration. However, should the national court conclude that such a legal relationship exists, it will be necessary to verify whether the TP adjustments constitute direct and immediate consideration for those services. The Court emphasized that the link between the vehicle repair services and the TP adjustments is at most indirect, as uncertainty regarding the existence of remuneration may itself interrupt the existence of a direct link. If the national court concludes that the TP adjustments did not constitute remuneration for the repair services provided, an adjustment of the taxable amount for the original vehicle supplies will have to be made. In our view, the Court’s considerations will have a significant impact on practice.
• In case T-233/25 Mokoryte SRL, the CJEU dealt with the adjustment of the taxable amount in relation to an assigned unpaid receivable. It concluded that the obligation to remit VAT and the possibility to adjust the taxable amount in the case of an unpaid receivable generally belong to the person who carried out the original taxable supply. For this reason, Mokoryte, as the assignee of the receivable, cannot claim an adjustment of the taxable amount. This conclusion does not have a significant impact on common practice in the Czech Republic.
• In the opinion issued in case T-366/25 Szytelbiecka, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice assessed whether the donation of a business by an entrepreneur to her two daughters constitutes a transfer of a business as a going concern. Immediately after the donation, the daughters contributed their ownership interests to a company operated by them. In this context, the Advocate General examined the requirements of the Directive and the interpretation of a single legal successor to the transferor, the daughters’ intention as acquirers to continue operating the business, and, finally, whether the individual steps (i.e. the transfer of the business and the subsequent contribution to the company) may be regarded as a single supply. The Advocate General stated that the conclusions should also be influenced by whether it would have been possible for the mother to transfer the business directly to the company.
• In case T-268/25 Sampension Livsforsikring A/S, the Advocate General addressed the possibility of introducing rules restricting the creation of VAT groups in Denmark and assessed whether the Danish rules are contrary to the Directive. Under Danish rules, entities carrying out exclusively exempt activities without the right to deduct VAT may form a VAT group only with entities that are in a direct or indirect 100% ownership relationship. The Advocate General concluded that Denmark was entitled to introduce restrictive rules for the formation of VAT groups; however, certain circumstances point to the possible disproportionality of the Danish rules, which should be assessed by the referring court (for example, it is unclear why the restriction does not also apply to entities with a partial right to deduct VAT).