Belgian State v Temco Europe: ECJ 18 Nov 2004

Where the substance of a transaction was merely that premises were made available under a licence for occupation, rather than for the provision of services, a licence to occupy premises could be treated as a letting for the purpose of the Sixth Directive.


C-284/03, [2004] EUECJ C-284/03, Times 25-Nov-2004






CitedStichtung ‘Goed Wonen’ and others v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 4-Oct-2001
A letting for the purpose of the VAT directive was essentially ‘the conferring by a landlord on a tenant for an agreed period and in return for payment of the right to occupy property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person . .
CitedBlasi v Finanzamt Munchen ECJ 12-Feb-1998
ECJ Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219715