header-logo header-logo

VAT

22 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Tulica v Agentia Nationala de Administrare Fiscala—Directia Generalia de Solutionare a Contestatilor and another case C-249/12 and C-250/12, [2013] All ER (D) 121 (Nov)

It followed from Arts 1(2) and 73 of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (the VAT Directive) that the principle of the common system of VAT entailed the application to goods and services of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to their price and that the taxable amount included everything which constituted consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier of goods or services for transactions with the purchaser, customer or a third party. Article 78 of that Directive listed certain items which were to be included in the taxable amount, and Art 78(a) provided that VAT was not to be included in the taxable amount. In accordance with the general rule set out in Art 73, the taxable amount for the supply of goods or services for consideration was the consideration actually received for them by the taxable person. That consideration was thus the subjective value, namely, the value received. That rule should

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll