This podcast concerns the European Court of Justice's ruling in Case C-58/04, Antje Köhler v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Nord, regarding the application of the Sixth VAT Directive to sales on cruise ships that make stops in non-EU countries. The core question addressed is whether brief stops in a third territory where passengers can disembark, even if only temporarily and without the possibility of beginning or ending their journey, constitute a "stop in a third territory" as defined in Article 8(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive. This provision dictates that sales on board during transport within the Community are generally taxed at the point of departure, unless there's a stop in a non-EU country. The court ultimately determined that any stop in a third country, even short ones allowing for temporary disembarkation, qualifies as a "stop in a third territory," meaning sales during that time fall outside the scope of the Sixth Directive to prevent conflicts with the third country's tax jurisdiction.

Case C-058/04 Köhler (15 September 2005)

This podcast presents a preliminary ruling request from a Dutch court to the European Court of Justice. The central issue is whether EU law, specifically regarding the free movement of capital, prevents a Member State (the Netherlands) from denying national insurance tax credits to non-resident taxpayers whose only income in that state is from savings and investments and who are not covered by the national social security system. The court examined whether this differential treatment of residents and non-residents constituted a restriction on capital movement and, if so, whether it could be objectively justified based on the difference in social security insurance status. Ultimately, the Court found that distinguishing between taxpayers based on their insurance status under the national social security system was permissible, even if it resulted in non-residents not receiving the same tax benefits.

Case C-512/03 Blanckaert (8 September 2005)

This podcast details the Case C-349/03 brought by the European Commission against the United Kingdom regarding its failure to implement Directive 77/799/EEC, concerning mutual assistance between competent authorities on taxation, in the territory of Gibraltar. The case specifically focused on the directive's application to Value Added Tax (VAT) and excise duties. The European Court of Justice ultimately ruled that, despite certain exclusions for Gibraltar under the Act of Accession, the mutual assistance requirements of the directive did apply to the territory for both VAT and excise duties, finding the United Kingdom failed to fulfill its obligations under the EC Treaty. This ruling clarifies that requirements for administrative cooperation are distinct from tax harmonization measures.

Case C-349/03 Commission v United Kingdom (21 July 2005)

This podcast details a European Court of Justice ruling concerning a case in Belgium where British American Tobacco International Ltd and Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV were assessed for VAT on tobacco products stolen from a tax warehouse. The core issue addressed is whether theft constitutes a "supply of goods for consideration" under the Sixth VAT Directive, which would make it subject to VAT. The judgment explicitly states that theft does not qualify as a taxable event in this context, regardless of whether the stolen goods are subject to excise duty. Furthermore, it clarifies that national derogations intended to simplify VAT procedures or prevent evasion, as permitted under Article 27(5) of the Directive, do not allow Member States to expand the categories of transactions subject to VAT beyond those outlined in Article 2 of the Directive.

Case C-435/03 British American Tobacco and Newman Shipping (14 July 2005)

This podcast details the Case C-434/03 involving P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens versus the Staatssecretaris van Financiën, a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands concerning VAT deductions on immovable property used for both business and private purposes. The core issue examined by the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) is whether national legislation predating the Sixth VAT Directive that prevents a taxable person from allocating such mixed-use goods entirely to their business and fully deducting the VAT is compatible with the Directive's provisions, particularly regarding the right to deduct input tax and the treatment of private use as a taxable supply. The Court ultimately ruled that such national rules are precluded by the Sixth Directive, as they restrict the taxable person's right to choose full business allocation and immediate, complete VAT deduction, a choice established by previous case law.

Case C-434/03 Charles and Charles-Tijmens (14 July 2005)

This podcast addresses whether certain notary charges in Germany should be considered taxes under Directive 69/335/EEC, which harmonizes indirect taxes on the raising of capital. The case specifically concerns the charges levied by notaries who are also civil servants and are required to transfer a fixed portion of these fees to the state. The Court confirms that, despite variations in national rules regarding who initially collects the fee and whether all notaries are civil servants, these charges are indeed considered taxes when a part of them is remitted to and used by the state for its operations. The Court also clarifies its jurisdiction to hear such preliminary rulings and deems a question about hypothetical future legislative changes inadmissible.

Case C-165/03 Längst (30 June 2005)

This podcast centers on the interpretation of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) regarding a body governed by public law acting first as a non-taxable public authority when acquiring capital goods, and then as a taxable person when selling those same goods. The core issue is whether such a body has a right to adjust the VAT deduction under Article 20 for the tax paid during the initial acquisition. The Court ultimately ruled that the capacity in which the entity acts at the time of purchase is determinative, concluding that a public authority purchasing as a non-taxable entity cannot later claim a deduction adjustment, even if they sell the goods as a taxable person.

Case C-378/02 Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen (2 June 2005)

This podcast presents the European Court of Justice's ruling in the case of António Jorge Lda v. Fazenda Pública, concerning the interpretation of Article 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive. The case addresses how a taxable person engaged in both taxable and exempt transactions, specifically in civil construction, should calculate their VAT deductible proportion. The core issue is whether the value of work in progress that has not yet been invoiced or paid for should be included in the denominator of the fraction used for this calculation. The Court ultimately ruled that including the value of such uncompleted work is contrary to the directive, as the right to deduct VAT is linked to transactions that have actually occurred.

Case C-536/03 António Jorge (26 May 2005)

This podcast details a European Court of Justice case (C-498/03) concerning the VAT exemption for welfare and child protection services in the UK. The core issue is whether private, for-profit entities like Kingscrest and Montecello, who operate care homes, can be considered "charitable" for VAT exemption purposes under the Sixth VAT Directive, even if they don't meet the UK's domestic definition of a charity. The Court ruled that the term "charitable" in the Directive is a Community law concept, not tied to national definitions, and does not exclude private profit-making organizations. However, it is up to the national court to determine if recognizing such an entity as charitable for VAT exemption respects principles like equal treatment and fiscal neutrality.

Case C-498/03 Kingscrest Associates and Montecello (26 May 2005)

This podcast presents the European Court of Justice's judgment in the Kretztechnik VAT on Share Issue case (C-465/03). The court addressed whether a new share issue by a company, even when related to a stock exchange listing, constitutes a taxable transaction under the Sixth VAT Directive. The ruling clarifies that issuing shares is not a supply of goods or services for consideration and therefore falls outside the scope of the Directive's taxing provisions. However, the judgment also confirms that a company can generally deduct VAT on expenses related to a share issue, provided the company's overall economic activities are subject to VAT.

Case C-465/03 Kretztechnik (26 May 2005)

This podcast details a European Court of Justice case brought by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium. The Commission alleged that Belgium failed to comply with Council Directive 69/335/EEC, which harmonizes indirect taxes on the raising of capital. Specifically, Belgium was accused of improperly levying a tax on stock exchange transactions and a tax on the delivery of bearer securities when new securities were issued. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Commission, finding that these taxes, as applied to new issues, violated the directive's prohibition on taxing the creation and issue of securities. The Court clarified that the initial acquisition and physical delivery of newly issued securities are considered integral parts of the issuing process under the directive.

Case C-415/02 Commission v Belgium (15 July 2004)

taxworld.ie

Related tracks