Einde inhoudsopgave
The EU VAT Treatment of Vouchers (FM nr. 157) 2019/6.3.3.7
6.3.3.7 Do the ‘private use’ provisions also apply to bought-in (purchased) services?
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl, datum 01-05-2019
- Datum
01-05-2019
- Auteur
Dr. J.B.O. Bijl
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS598300:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Omzetbelasting / Levering van goederen en diensten
Omzetbelasting / Bijzondere OB-regelingen
Omzetbelasting / Vergoeding
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Schreiben betr. Vorsteurabzug und Umsatzbesteuerung bei unternehmerisch genutzten Fahrzeuge ab 1. April 1999, BMF 27.8.2004 IV B 7-S 7300-70/04, Section 5 (Miete oder Leasing von Fahrzeugen). The German Ministry of Finance explains that the VAT on the rent and the lease terms cannot be deducted insofar as the vehicles are used for private purposes. However, the Ministry of Finance allows businesses, for simplicity reasons, to apply the VAT rules applicable to goods.
I found this on-line in an official HMRC publication regarding Private use of goods or services, self-supply and VAT, last updated on 18 June 2018, on http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/managing/special-situations/private-use.htm, under the heading ‘Accounting for VAT on services used privately’, last visited on 18 February 2019.
Explanatory Memorandum to the 2007 Tax Package (Belastingplan 2007), Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2006-2007, 30 804, nr. 3, page 60 (not applicable to purchased services) and 63-65 (VAT on such purchased services is deductible because the services are subject to VAT).
Madeleine Merkx, 'VAT on Private Use of Company Cars in Cross-Border Situations: Double on Non-taxation?' (2015) 24 EC Tax Review, Issue 2, pp. 96-104.
Ben Terra and Julie Kajus, A Guide to the European VAT Directives 2018, IBFD, Amsterdam, 2018, Volume 1, Section 4.11.3.7.
CJEU case C-258/95 Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Neustad, ECLI:EU:C:1997:491.
CJEU case C-155/01, Cookies World Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH iL and Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, ECLI:EU:C:2003:449.
CJEU case C-371/07, Danfoss A/S and AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet, ECLI:EU:C:2008:590.
See CJEU case C-371/07, Danfoss A/S and AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet, ECLI:EU:C:2008:711, paragraph 46 and the CJEU case law cited there.
CJEU case C-258/95 Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Neustad, ECLI:EU:C:1997:491, answer to the third preliminary question (question: “Does Article 6(2) of Directive 77/338/EEC also cover a case where the employer does not convey the employees in its own vehicles, but commissions a third party (…) to effect the trans- port?” answer: “The answer to the second question also applies when the employer does not convey the employees in its own vehicles, but commissions one of its employees to provide the transport using his own private vehicle”.
CJEU case C-155/01, Cookies World Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH iL and Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, ECLI:EU:C:2003:449.
CJEU case C-371/07, Danfoss A/S and AstraZeneca A/S v Skatteministeriet, ECLI:EU:C:2008:590.
Articles 184-192 of the EU VAT Directive.
CJEU joined cases C-322/99 and C-323/99, Finanzamt Burgdorf and Hans-Georg Fischer (C-322/99) and Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann and Klaus Brandenstein (C-323/99), ECLI:EU:C:2001:280, paragraph 95.
Some EU Member States, e.g. Germany,1 are of the view that the ‘full-deduction-followed-by-adjustment’ rules do not apply to purchased services. Other Member States, like the United Kingdom,2 only allow the rule for services where the private use cannot be assessed beforehand, and yet other Member States, like the Netherlands,3 are unsure.
In my view, there is no reason not to include bought-in services in this adjustment system, if only because there is nothing in the text of the provision that suggests that they should not be included. Both Merkx4 and Terra and Kajus5 share this view, based on the same CJEU case law that I will describe in this Section to support this view.
In its case law regarding this provision, i.e. the Fillibeck case,6 the Cookies World case7 and the Danfoss and AstraZeneca case,8 the CJEU has stated that the aim of this provision is to ensure equal treatment as between a taxable person who applies goods or services for his own private use or for that of his staff and a final consumer who acquires goods or services of the same type.9 To me, this is a clear indication that the CJEU supports my view that these provisions also apply to bought-in services.
Also, the same taxable amount is used for both provisions that regard services for no consideration as being made for consideration: the use of goods as well as the use of services. For the use of the goods, the provision only applies insofar VAT was deducted. The fact that the same taxable amount is used for both provisions to me is an indication that the provisions serve the same purpose: ensuring that the taxable person using services for his private purposes is treated the same as a private consumer of those services, from a VAT perspective. This goal is achieved by an adjustment system that not only ensures taxation to balance out prior deduction of VAT in case of private consumption, but also taxation of services that would have been subject to VAT if purchased from a third-party provider.
Furthermore, CJEU case law exists about the taxation of the private consumption of bought-in services: transportation of staff arranged by other parties than the employer,10 company lease cars11 and the supply of catering services.12 However, the CJEU has also ruled that where work (i.e. services, JB) which is carried out on goods after their purchase and on which the input VAT was deducted does not give rise to liability of VAT under the ‘adjustment for private consumption through taxation’-provision regarding the application of goods, the VAT deducted in respect of that work must be adjusted in accordance with the (other) ‘adjustment provisions’13 (under which overclaimed VAT must be repaid as such) if the value of the work in question has not been entirely consumed in the context of the business activity of the taxable person before the goods is allocated for private consumption purposes.14 In my view, this is not in line with the purpose of the relevant provisions and also only appears in one CJEU ruling about the application or use of goods.