In the Netherlands case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV (ECJ Case C-622/11) a company (P) acquired a property which the vendor had opted to tax in January 2000. In July 2000 P sold the property. The Netherlands tax authority formed the opinion that as P’s sale of the property was exempt from VAT its acquisition of the property should also have been treated as exempt. They issued an assessment on P seeking to recover input tax which the vendor of the property had originally reclaimed. P appealed and the case was referred to the ECJ for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 20 of the EC Sixth Directive. The ECJ held that ‘the Sixth Directive contains no express indication concerning the taxable person liable for tax debts resulting from the adjustment of a...
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:
In the Netherlands case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Pactor Vastgoed BV (ECJ Case C-622/11) a company (P) acquired a property which the vendor had opted to tax in January 2000. In July 2000 P sold the property. The Netherlands tax authority formed the opinion that as P’s sale of the property was exempt from VAT its acquisition of the property should also have been treated as exempt. They issued an assessment on P seeking to recover input tax which the vendor of the property had originally reclaimed. P appealed and the case was referred to the ECJ for a ruling on the interpretation of Article 20 of the EC Sixth Directive. The ECJ held that ‘the Sixth Directive contains no express indication concerning the taxable person liable for tax debts resulting from the adjustment of a...
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:
