South Central Administrative Court Judgment of 8 January 2015

Case No. 08165/14

In this Judgment, the South Central Administrative Court states that a company that never pursued the activity for which it was established, and whose records only show passive operations, cannot deduct the VAT paid with the purchase of goods and services intended for the implementation of the infra-structures necessary to pursue the corporate object.

Unlike the court of first instance, the South Central Administrative C ourt considered that there was no room for deduction since the abovementioned services were ultimately never used to obtain revenue that could be subject to tax, without a direct and immediate relation between the goods and services purchased and the whole economic activity pursued by the company, since no activity had been pursued.

South Central Administrative Court Judgment of 8 January 2015

Case No. 03804/10

In this Judgment, the South Central Administrative Court states that when a public deed of purchase and sale of a property is signed and only part of the price is paid at that time, it being agreed that the remainder of the price would be paid in the following calendar year, the entire amount of the price paid for the transfer of the property is a taxable income of the tax year in question, being however, possible to consider as a taxable cost the amount of the deferred payment as provision.

Administrative and Tax Arbitration Centre

Tax Arbitration Court

Arbitration Decision of 30 September 2014, published on 13 January 2015 Case No. 323/2014-T

In this Arbitration Decision, the Arbitration Court rules, in particular, on the proof to be provided by the transferor in the scope of an intra-community transfer of goods, for the latter to benefit from exemption from VAT.

The Arbitration Court states that the Tax and Customs Authority cannot require the transferor to provide more evidence than the one that is reasonably available to him in the scope of a typical commercial transaction, at the risk of breaching the principle of proportionality.

Moreover, exemption from the VAT applicable to intra-community transfers cannot be denied where the information at the disposal of the transferor, which he should verify, could not enable him to assume the non-occurrence of any of the pre-conditions for the application of said exemption.

In this context, as regards the proof that the purchaser of the goods is registered for VAT purposes in the country for which the goods are intended and is covered by an intra- community purchase taxation regime, the Arbitration Court states that the transferor must:

  • Obtain the VAT number of the purchaser;
  • Verify that the number corresponds to the country of origin of the purchaser ; and
  • Validate such number in the VAT Information Exchange System (“VIES”).

Finally, the vicissitudes linked to the verification through the VIES of the purchaser of the goods’ data on the date of the transactions cannot serve as grounds to deny  the transferor VAT exemption in the intra-community transaction.