In the Netherlands case of Fiscale Eenheid PPG Holdings BV cs te Hoogezand v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/Kantoor Groningen (CJEU Case C-26/12) the CJEU held that art 17 of the Sixth Directive ‘must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has set up a pension fund in the form of a legally and fiscally separate entity such as that at issue in the main proceedings in order to safeguard the pension rights of his employees and former employees is entitled to deduct the value added tax he has paid on services relating to the management and operation of that fund provided that the existence of a direct and immediate link is apparent from all the circumstances of the transactions in question’.
In the Netherlands case of Fiscale Eenheid PPG Holdings BV cs te Hoogezand v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Noord/Kantoor Groningen (CJEU Case C-26/12) the CJEU held that art 17 of the Sixth Directive ‘must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person who has set up a pension fund in the form of a legally and fiscally separate entity such as that at issue in the main proceedings in order to safeguard the pension rights of his employees and former employees is entitled to deduct the value added tax he has paid on services relating to the management and operation of that fund provided that the existence of a direct and immediate link is apparent from all the circumstances of the transactions in question’.
