×
Tell us and our members what your questions, viewpoint and experiences are relating to this category.
ECJ - Interpretation Of “Supply Of Goods”
- ThomasG
- Topic Author
- Visitor
-
10 years 11 months ago - 10 years 11 months ago #122
by ThomasG
ECJ - Interpretation Of “Supply Of Goods” was created by ThomasG
UK - ECJ decided that no VAT refund should be granted if a credit card is used fraudulently
The ECJ gave its decision in the case of Dixons Retail plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Case C 494/12) on November 21, 2013. The UK Tax Chamber had requested a preliminary ruling from the ECJ on November 5, 2012, including:
1. Is Article 14.1 of the EU VAT Directive to be interpreted as applying when the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraud in that the payment provided by the transferee is by means of a card which the transferee knows he has no authority to use?
2. When the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraudulent use of a card, is there a ”transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner” within Article 14.1?
3. Is Article 73 to be interpreted as applying when payment is obtained by the transferor of goods under an agreement with a third party to make such payment in respect of a card transactions notwithstanding that the transferee of the goods knows that he has no authority to use the card?
4. When payment is made by a third party pursuant to an agreement between the transferor of the goods and the third party as a consequence of the presentation to the transferor of a card which the transferee of the goods has no authority to use is the payment obtained from the third party ”in return for the supply” within Article 73?
The ECJ has decided that Articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of the EU VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who fraudulently uses a bank card as a means of payment constitutes a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of the EU VAT Directive and that, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party has undertaken to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constitutes ‘consideration’ within the meaning of Article 73 of the EU VAT Directive.
Case C 494/12
The ECJ gave its decision in the case of Dixons Retail plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Case C 494/12) on November 21, 2013. The UK Tax Chamber had requested a preliminary ruling from the ECJ on November 5, 2012, including:
1. Is Article 14.1 of the EU VAT Directive to be interpreted as applying when the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraud in that the payment provided by the transferee is by means of a card which the transferee knows he has no authority to use?
2. When the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraudulent use of a card, is there a ”transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner” within Article 14.1?
3. Is Article 73 to be interpreted as applying when payment is obtained by the transferor of goods under an agreement with a third party to make such payment in respect of a card transactions notwithstanding that the transferee of the goods knows that he has no authority to use the card?
4. When payment is made by a third party pursuant to an agreement between the transferor of the goods and the third party as a consequence of the presentation to the transferor of a card which the transferee of the goods has no authority to use is the payment obtained from the third party ”in return for the supply” within Article 73?
The ECJ has decided that Articles 2(1)(a), 14(1) and 73 of the EU VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the physical transfer of goods to a purchaser who fraudulently uses a bank card as a means of payment constitutes a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1) of the EU VAT Directive and that, in the context of such a transfer, the payment made by a third party, under an agreement concluded between it and the supplier of those goods by which the third party has undertaken to pay the supplier for the goods sold by the latter to purchasers using such a card as a means of payment, constitutes ‘consideration’ within the meaning of Article 73 of the EU VAT Directive.
Case C 494/12
Last edit: 10 years 11 months ago by ThomasG.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.362 seconds
