- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-642/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Gelderland (Netherlands) lodged on 12 October 2022 — Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CN0642
62022CN0642
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
30.1.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 35/26
(Case C-642/22)
(2023/C 35/31)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten
Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Maastricht
Question referred
Must Article 135(1)(g) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that unit-holders in a pension fund such as the one at issue in the main proceedings can be regarded as bearing investment risk, and does this mean that the pension fund constitutes a ‘special investment fund’ within the meaning of that provision? Is it relevant in that regard:
whether unit-holders bear an individual investment risk or is it sufficient that unit-holders as a collective — and no one else — bear the consequences of the investment results?
what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?
to what extent the amount of the pension benefit depends also on other factors, such as the number of years of pension accrual, salary level and the actuarial interest rate?
what the magnitude of the collective or individual risk is?
(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).