AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite Plovdiv
In the Bulgarian case of AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite Plovdiv (Case C-124/12) a company which operated a power station hired staff from an associated company and reclaimed input tax on the provision of transport and protective clothing. The tax authority rejected the claims and the company appealed. The case was referred to the CJEU which held that articles 168(a) and 176 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person which incurs costs for transport services work clothing protective gear and business trips for staff working for that taxable person does not have the right to a deduction of the VAT relating to those costs on the ground that that staff is provided to it...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite Plovdiv
AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite Plovdiv
In the Bulgarian case of AES-3C Maritza East 1 EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite Plovdiv (Case C-124/12) a company which operated a power station hired staff from an associated company and reclaimed input tax on the provision of transport and protective clothing. The tax authority rejected the claims and the company appealed. The case was referred to the CJEU which held that articles 168(a) and 176 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person which incurs costs for transport services work clothing protective gear and business trips for staff working for that taxable person does not have the right to a deduction of the VAT relating to those costs on the ground that that staff is provided to it...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
