The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words ‘for transactions’ shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must have a direct and immediate link with the taxable transactions, and that the ultimate aim pursued by the taxable person is irrelevant in this respect. The principle of neutrality must co-exist with other general principles, such as the objective of legal certainty.
ECJ Article 2 of the First Directive 67/227 and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes are to be interpreted as meaning that, except in the cases expressly provided for by those directives, where a taxable person supplies services to another taxable person who uses them for an exempt transaction, the latter person is not entitled to deduct the input value added tax paid, even if the ultimate purpose of the exempt transaction is the carrying out of a taxable transaction. The wording of those provisions shows that to give rise to the right to deduct, the goods or services in question must have a direct and immediate link with the taxable transactions, and that the ultimate aim pursued by the taxable person is irrelevant in this respect.
Judges:
C. Gulmann, P
Citations:
Times 17-Apr-1995, [1995] ECR I-983, [1995] ECR I-983, [1996] 1 WLR 174, [1995] STC 424, [1995] EUECJ C-4/94, [1995] BVC 159, [1995] 2 CMLR 75, [1995] All ER (EC) 401
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
Cited by:
Cited – Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Southern Primary Housing Limited CA 18-Nov-2003
The land owner had elected to pay VAT on the purchase of land. It sought to recover that VAT. The Commissioners appealed an order allowing that.
Held: Ther were three transactions, the purchase, the sale, and a development contract. The input . .
Cited – Lex Services plc v Her Majestys Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 4-Dec-2003
When taking a car in part exchange, the company would initially offer the correct market value. If the customer wanted, the company would agree a higher price. When cars were returned, the company at first reclaimed the VAT on the re-purchase price, . .
Cited – Church of England Children’s Society v Revenue and Customs ChD 29-Jul-2005
The Society sent out free newsletters to its unpaid fund-raisers and supporters. They sought to deduct input tax charged to them from the supplies associated with the costs.
Held: The Society might be able to deduct such tax as residual input . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Pendragon Plc and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
‘This appeal is about an elaborate scheme designed and marketed by KPMG relating to demonstrator cars used by retail distributors for test drives and other internal purposes. In the ordinary course, a car distributor will buy new cars for use as . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group Plc HL 11-Feb-1999
Where house builders had paid the estate agents’ fees for exchanged property on sales, the supply had been, at least in part, to the builder, and the builder could accordingly recover the agents’ VAT as input tax. A supplier could be treated as . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.161263