Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Case Law

Case Law EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 26 September "19e6, C-302/93, Debouche (NL) VAT - Art. 17(2) and (3)(a) of the Sixth Directive and Art. 3(b) and Art. 5 of the Eighth Directive - Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in another Member State and benefitingfrom VAT exemption for his activity in his state of residence. Mr. Debouche was an attorney established in Belgium, where his activities were exempted from VAT (in accordance with Art. 28(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Annex F thereof). In the Netherlands. however. these services are subiect to VAT. Mr. ~ e b o u c h ehired a car from a leising company established in the Netherlands, which he used exclusively for his exempted professional activity in Belgium. He also submitted an application to the Dutch authorities for the refund of the VAT which he had been charged on the cost of hiring the car. The Dutch VAT authorities rejected this claim, since he was not subiect to VAT in Belgium. Mr. Debouche. however, alleged that he was a taxable person within the meaning of Art. 3(b) of the Eighth Directive and that, according to Art. 5, first paragraph of that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png EC Tax Review Kluwer Law International

Case Law

Vandenberghe; Elliott
EC Tax Review , Volume 6 (1) – Mar 1, 1997
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/case-law-nKVtBVmXQr
Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer Law International
ISSN
0928-2750
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 26 September "19e6, C-302/93, Debouche (NL) VAT - Art. 17(2) and (3)(a) of the Sixth Directive and Art. 3(b) and Art. 5 of the Eighth Directive - Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in another Member State and benefitingfrom VAT exemption for his activity in his state of residence. Mr. Debouche was an attorney established in Belgium, where his activities were exempted from VAT (in accordance with Art. 28(3)(b) of the Sixth Directive, in conjunction with Annex F thereof). In the Netherlands. however. these services are subiect to VAT. Mr. ~ e b o u c h ehired a car from a leising company established in the Netherlands, which he used exclusively for his exempted professional activity in Belgium. He also submitted an application to the Dutch authorities for the refund of the VAT which he had been charged on the cost of hiring the car. The Dutch VAT authorities rejected this claim, since he was not subiect to VAT in Belgium. Mr. Debouche. however, alleged that he was a taxable person within the meaning of Art. 3(b) of the Eighth Directive and that, according to Art. 5, first paragraph of that

Journal

EC Tax Review – Kluwer Law International

Published: Mar 1, 1997

There are no references for this article.