VAT plans of the European Commission

Amendments to the EU VAT directive, which were originally expected to impact European taxpayers already from 2025, may be postponed even for several years. The European Commission still assumes that using a one-stop-shop should be extended to other types of B2C deliveries and B2B transactions when transferring internally developed goods; however, these regulations should come into force from 2027. In the same year, the obligations of platforms cooperating with people providing short-term accommodation or transport of persons should also be significantly extended. Further, rules for the determination of the place of performance regarding the service of helping platform sales should change. Another change regarding mandatory electronic invoicing (in selected cases) should come with a greater deferment in 2030.

Judgements of the CJEU

• Within the judgment in case C-207/23 Finanzamt X vs. Y KG, the CJEU clarified the rules for determining the tax base for internally developed products distributed by the taxpayer. Based on the Court’s opinion, it can be said that it would be very rare to determine the tax base in the amount of the overall production costs of the distributed goods (in such case, the tax base should include both direct and indirect costs regardless of whether input VAT was imposed on these costs or not). Most often, the tax base will be determined based on the purchase price of similar goods. The CJEU did not explain how to determine such a tax base in practice univocally.
• In case C‑241/23 P. sp. z o.o., the CJEU stated that a contribution of immovable property upon the increase in share capital is a transaction for consideration represented by the acquired shares. In the Court’s opinion, the tax base is basically to be determined in the amount agreed upon by the participating parties. This opinion is crucial for the interpretation of the Czech VAT Act.
• In case C-89/23 Companhia União de Crédito Popular, the CJEU assessed whether a creditor who auctions off a material pledge to satisfy his debt provides the debtor with a separate supply or not. According to the Court of Justice, this is not the case. In our opinion, this judgment is not crucial for the Czech practice.
• In case C-68/23 M-GbR, the CJEU assessed the issue of voucher distribution for the provision of a service. The Court of Justice described alternatively the taxation principles regarding transfers of single-purpose and multi-purpose vouchers. Its findings do not change anything in the commonly known rules following the VAT legislation. However, at the end of its analysis, the Court presented a slightly controversial view on tax base determination for the distribution of the respective vouchers.
• In case C-60/23 Digital Charging Solutions, the Advocate General of the CJEU examined the issue of electric vehicle charging if access to the charging device is provided by one person, whereas another person ensures electricity supplies. It follows from the opinion of the Advocate General that, for VAT purposes, the person providing access to the charging device should be considered an intermediary acting in his name but on the account of another person. We believe that the analysis of the Advocate General is highly controversial, as, among other things, in his opinion, he overlooked the nature of contractual relationships between the individual participants.