- 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-288/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Saarlandes — Germany) — QM v Finanzamt Saarbrücken (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Supplies of services for consideration — Article 26(1) — Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration — Article 56(2) — Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes — Hiring of means of transport — Making cars available to employees)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0288
62019CA0288
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 79/5
(Case C-288/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Supplies of services for consideration - Article 26(1) - Transactions treated as supplies of services for consideration - Article 56(2) - Determination of the point of reference for tax purposes - Hiring of means of transport - Making cars available to employees)
(2021/C 79/05)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: QM
Defendant: Finanzamt Saarbrücken
Operative part of the judgment
On a proper construction of the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, the act of making a vehicle forming part of the assets of the business of a taxable person available to one of that taxable person’s employees does not fall within the scope of that provision if that transaction does not constitute a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive. By contrast, the first subparagraph of Article 56(2) of Directive 2006/112 does apply to such a transaction if it involves a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive and if that employee has a permanent right to use that vehicle for private purposes and to exclude other persons from using it, in exchange for rent and for an agreed period of more than 30 days.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Language of the case: German