Skatterättsnämnden, or the Swedish Council for Advance Tax Rulings (“the Council”), has ruled that the right to use test tracks and facilities for the testing of vehicles and vehicle components is not to be treated as letting of immovable property.

The business of the applicant essentially involves a right for the customers to use the test track and other facilities (workshops, offices, etc.) during the agreed period of time (no more than four months). The test tracks and facilities are normally used for the testing of vehicles and vehicle components, and include access to the other services the company provides, e.g., administration, maintenance, monitoring, catering, internet access and cleaning. Other customers are excluded from the right to use or enter the facilities during that period.

According to the Council, the purpose of the supply is not to give the customers a right to immovable property. The company's operations and the services provided should, according to the Council, be characterised by the large number of services provided than by the right to use immovable property. The test tracks and facilities therefore appear to be subordinate to the services provided even though they make a crucial component of the supply. Here, the Council refers to the rulings from the Supreme Administrative Court (RÅ 2005 note. 68 and RÅ 2005 ref. 33). The fact that other customers are excluded from the right to enter the premises is, according to the Council, more a result of the need for secrecy than the customer's exercise of the right to use immovable property.

The company provides a large number of services. Some of them could be seen as parts of a single supply in creating conditions for the testing of vehicles and vehicle components. However, the supplies also include ancillary services such as catering and conference services, reservations and monitoring, among others. The Council therefore found (with reference to, e.g., the European Court of Justice ruling in C-497/09 Manfred Bog) that the different services could not constitute a single, indivisible supply which would be considered artificial to split up. The Council concluded that the supplies should be viewed as several separate supplies of which no part was to be seen as VAT-exempt letting of immovable property.

The ruling has not been appealed by either the Tax Agency nor the applicant.