VAT on Intra-Community Acquisition of Medical Equipment via Financial Leasing – CAAD 265/2016-T

ARBITRAL DECISION

I. REPORT

A…, LDA., holder of the Collective Person Identification Number…, with registered office at Rua…, no.…, …-…, in …, filed a petition for the establishment of a singular Arbitral Tribunal, pursuant to the combined provisions of Articles 2 and 10 of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (Legal Regime for Arbitration in Tax Matters, hereinafter referred to only as LRATM), in which the Tax and Customs Authority (hereinafter AT) is the Respondent, with the objective of obtaining the annulment of the VAT (Value Added Tax) and compensatory interest (CI) assessment acts identified in the file, relating to the years 2008 and 2009, in the total amount of €26,171.09.

The petition for the establishment of the Arbitral Tribunal was accepted by His Excellency the President of CAAD on 11.04.2016 and automatically notified to the AT.

In accordance with the provision in subparagraph c) of no. 1 of Article 11 of the LRATM, the singular Arbitral Tribunal was established on 24.05.2016.

The AT responded, defending the inadmissibility of the petition, arguing for the maintenance of the VAT assessment acts.

The meeting referred to in Article 18 of the LRATM was waived and the holding of final arguments was dispensed with, in light of the nature of the matter contained in the file.

The Arbitral Tribunal was regularly established.

The parties have legal standing and capacity, are legitimate (Articles 4 and 10, no. 2, of the same statute and Article 1 of Regulation No. 112-A/2011, of 22 March) and are duly represented.

No nullities, exceptions or preliminary questions exist that would prevent the tribunal from proceeding immediately to the merits of the case.

II. FACTUAL MATTER

Based on the elements contained in the proceedings attached to the file, the following facts are considered proven:

• The Applicant has been registered as a VAT taxpayer since 26.05.1988, falling under Article 9 of the VAT Code, for the exercise of its main activity of "Other activities of human health, n.e.c.", CAE…, and secondary activity of "Other research and development of physical and natural sciences", CAE….

• The Applicant does not charge VAT on its outputs nor deducts VAT incurred on its inputs;

• During the years 2008 and 2009, the Applicant carried out civil construction works and acquisition of equipment;

• The Applicant acquired two medical devices in Spain ("Equipment") through invoices No. 2008/… and No. 2009/…, dated 10.11.2008 and 12.01.2009, respectively.

• Needing to finance the acquisition of the Equipment, the Applicant acquired said equipment only to promptly transfer them to B…, S.A., which, in turn, leased the assets to the Applicant through a financial lease contract;

• The Applicant was subject to a Tax Inspection by the AT, in the course of which a VAT correction was made regarding the intra-community acquisitions of the Equipment;

• The Applicant was notified of the draft decision, of the inspection procedure and the respective conclusions of the inspection action;

• Having exercised in writing its right to a hearing on the draft conclusions relating to the inspection procedure mentioned above;

• The AT issued the following VAT assessment acts and compensatory interest acts, in the total amount of €26,171.09:

  · VAT assessment act No.…, relating to period 0812, in the amount of €12,200.00;

  · Compensatory interest assessment act No.…, relating to period 0812, in the amount of €1,842.37;

  · VAT assessment act No.…, relating to period 0902, in the amount of €10,600.00;

  · Compensatory interest assessment act No.…, relating to period 0902, in the amount of €1,528.72.

• In the context of the hierarchical appeal process No. …2014…, on 10 February 2016, the AT issued a decision of dismissal.

With relevance to the present decision, there are no facts that should be considered as unproven.

Taking into account the positions assumed by the parties, in light of Article 110, no. 7 of the Tax Procedure Code and the documentary evidence submitted to the file, the facts listed above are considered proven, with relevance to the decision.

III. LEGAL MATTERS

The main question that arises in the present proceedings is whether the Applicant should or should not charge VAT regarding the intra-community acquisitions of medical equipment made from a VAT taxpayer in Spain, better identified in the invoices attached to the present file.

In this sense, the Applicant argues, in summary, the following:

• Article 9, no. 2 of the VAT Code provides that the following are exempt from tax: medical and health services and operations closely connected with them carried out by hospitals, clinics, dispensaries and similar establishments;

• This exemption applies to activities aimed at diagnosing, treating and, if possible, curing diseases or health anomalies, and applies regardless of whether the services are provided by a natural or legal person, as well as regardless of whether the exercise of these activities is for profit or not.

• As is well known, and as has been reiterated by the Court of Justice of the European Union, exemptions under VAT are subject to strict interpretation, as they constitute derogations from the general principle that VAT is charged on all services provided for consideration by a taxable person;

• Thus, the Applicant, as a taxable person who carries out, in principle, exempt operations that do not confer the right to deduction, does not charge VAT on its active operations and cannot deduce VAT incurred upstream;

• Under Article 3 of the VAT Regime for Intra-Community Transactions (VRITT), an intra-community acquisition of goods is considered to be the obtaining of the power of disposal in a manner corresponding to the exercise of the right of ownership of a tangible movable asset whose dispatch or transport to national territory, by the seller, by the purchaser or on their behalf, for delivery to the purchaser, has begun in another Member State ("MS");

• Thus, intra-community acquisitions of goods are taxable when the place of arrival of the dispatch or transport for delivery to the purchaser is located in national territory;

• Article 5 of the VRITT provides that the following are not subject to VAT: intra-community acquisitions of goods, made by a VAT-exempt taxable person, provided that (i) the goods are not new means of transport nor goods subject to special consumption taxes; and (ii) the overall value of the acquisitions, net of VAT, due or paid in the Member States where the dispatch or transport of the goods begins, did not exceed in the previous calendar year or in the current calendar year the amount of €10,000 or, in the case of a single acquisition, does not exceed that amount;

• Regardless of the VAT treatment of intra-community acquisitions of goods, the fact is that, in this case, there were no distinct operations (intra-community acquisition and sale for financial lease), but only financing through a financial lease contract;

• Thus, the negotiation phases of the principal operation at issue cannot be separated, as these intermediate operations are embryonically accessory;

• If the Applicant had known that it should charge VAT at the moment of acquisition, it would not have entered into a financing arrangement through a financial lease contract, but rather would have ensured that the formal acquirer of the equipment was B…, in order to later take it on lease, as is common practice in the market;

• Also, the principle "in dubio contra fiscum" was violated by the AT in its actions, according to which, if any economic reality as stated by the AT has not been proven, the matter must necessarily be valued against the AT, under Article 100 of the Tax Procedure Code;

• Even if it were admitted, by mere hypothesis for the sake of argument, that the amount now required by the AT were due, revealing (contrary to material truth and closing one's eyes to the surrounding reality and the clear economic purpose of the Applicant's actions) two distinct operations and, as such, requiring the charge of VAT on the intra-community acquisitions of the Equipment, neither would it be required of the Applicant to charge the amount of tax demanded.

• Because, revealing the two operations and unraveling the economic reality in question, it would always be stated that, by acquiring the Equipment with the intention of transferring them to B… to, consequently, enter into a financial lease contract with it, if having to self-assess VAT, it would also have the right to proceed with the respective deduction of the tax.

• Given that, under Article 20 of the VAT Code, tax incurred on goods or services acquired, imported or used by the taxable person for the purpose of carrying out transfers of goods may be deducted.

• Now, although normally the Applicant carries out VAT-exempt operations (provision of medical services), with regard to the acquisition of equipment with the intention of resale, we are faced with an operation subject to VAT and not exempt from it and which, as such, confers the right to deduction.

• Thus, no doubts remain, in light of the legal evidence and the case law, which is consistent on the matter in question, that if the Applicant is required to charge VAT relating to intra-community acquisitions, it must also be recognized the right to deduct said tax, because it relates to an operation subject to VAT and not exempt from it (sale of the medical equipment to B…).

• In this case, Article 78, no. 14 of the VAT Code must also be taken into account, according to which "in cases where the obligation to charge and pay the tax falls to the purchaser of the goods and services and the corresponding amounts have not been included in the periodic declaration, giving rise to the respective charge and deduction or have been included outside the legally established deadline, the charge and deduction are accepted without any consequences, provided that the taxable person files the replacement declaration, without prejudice to the penalty that may apply".

• If it is understood that VAT should have been self-assessed on intra-community acquisitions, in that sense it would obviously have to be deducted said VAT.

• Therefore, the AT cannot require the Applicant to pay the CI that is being demanded under the additional assessments Nos. … and … (See Documents Nos. 3 and 5 already attached), in the total amount of €3,371.09 (three thousand three hundred seventy-one euros and nine cents).

For its part, the AT argues the following:

1. The Applicant, when carrying out the intra-community acquisitions of the equipment, did not proceed with the assessment of the VAT due, under the terms of Articles 8, no. 1, 23, no. 1, subparagraph a), and 27, no. 1 of the VRITT, nor with the filing of the periodic declaration;

2. Being not permitted the deduction of the same tax, by the combination of Articles 19 of the VRITT and the VAT Code, neither did it comply with the obligation to payment of the tax, provided in Article 22, no. 2 of the VRITT.

3. The said medical equipment were, on 01.10.2009, the object of a sale transaction followed by financial lease, through a movable financial lease contract No. …, executed between B… SA, NIF…, and the present Applicant.

4. In summary, the present Applicant sold the equipment acquired to the lessor in order, subsequently, to continue using them under a financial lease arrangement.

5. The Applicant understands that, "(…) in this case, there were no distinct operations (intra-community acquisition and sale for financial lease), but only financing through a financial lease contract".

6. However, in the present case, three operations subject to VAT occurred, namely: i) intra-community acquisition of goods, ii) transfer of goods and iii) provision of services (financial lease).

7. Under Article 1, no. 1 of the VAT Code, "the following are subject to value added tax: a) The transfers of goods and the provision of services carried out in national territory, for consideration, by a taxable person acting as such; b) The importation of goods; c) The intra-community operations carried out in national territory, as defined and regulated in the VAT Regime for Intra-Community Transactions".

8. Within the scope of the VAT Code, financial lease is considered a provision of services subject to tax, in accordance with subparagraph a) of no. 1 of Article 1, combined with no. 1 of Article 4 of the VAT Code.

9. On the other hand, "A transaction of sale followed by lease, designated in the Anglo-Saxon version of international accounting standards and in the literature as 'sale leaseback transaction', and which is commonly referred to simply as leaseback, occurs when the owner of an asset (the seller of the asset, who simultaneously becomes the lessee) sells the asset and immediately, on the same, or on part of the same, enters into a lease contract with the new owner of the asset (the buyer of the asset, who simultaneously becomes the lessor). Such an operation constitutes two distinct transactions, i) a sale of an asset and ii) a lease contract by which the seller of the asset acquires the right to use it" (see Sérgio Pontes; of the then Chamber of Official Accountants; in "SNC - Current and non-current Liabilities"; "Course Notes Online"; p. 56.).

10. For VAT purposes, the sale of assets to the lessor, despite the assets continuing to be used by the Applicant under a financial lease arrangement, constitutes a distinct taxable event from what occurs with the accrual of each of the installments of the lease contract, with no duplication of VAT collection in the sale followed by lease transaction.

11. The tax would be due by the transfer of goods and would be calculated on the value of the consideration received or to be received (Articles 3, no. 1, and 16, no. 1 of the VAT Code), if it did not benefit from the exemption provided in Article 9 of the VAT Code. In the provision of services resulting from the financial lease contract, VAT is calculated on the value of the installment received or to be received from the lessee (Articles 4, no. 1, and 16, no. 2, subparagraph h), of the VAT Code).

12. In effect, and contrary to what occurs in Corporate Income Tax (CIT), whose Code, in its Article 25, provides for a neutrality regime, within the scope of VAT, there is no specific regime for leaseback, with each of the transactions being treated autonomously and independently.

13. Furthermore, for VAT purposes, the purchase of the equipment from the Spanish taxable person is an operation distinct from the sale followed by lease transaction.

14. Under subparagraph a) of Article 1 of the VRITT, the following are subject to VAT in national territory: intra-community acquisitions of goods made in national territory, for consideration, by a taxable person referred to in no. 1 of Article 2, acting as such, when the seller is a taxable person, acting as such, registered for VAT purposes in another Member State that is not covered there by any particular exemption regime for small businesses;

15. In turn, Article 2, no. 1, subparagraph b) of the same statute, considers as taxable persons for the tax on intra-community acquisition of goods, "Natural or legal persons mentioned in subparagraph a) of no. 1 of Article 2 of the VAT Code that carry out exclusively transfers of goods or provision of services that do not confer any right to deduction".

16. As Mário Alexandre writes, "The application of the principle of taxation in the country of destination is aimed at ensuring that VAT is collected by the Member States where final consumption of the goods takes place, for which reason, it was established in art. 2/b), c) of the VRITT that natural or legal persons who develop an activity exempt without the right to deduction, when they carry out intra-community acquisitions of goods, although these natural or legal persons, in the exercise of their activity, are exempted from the obligation to charge VAT, being therefore treated as 'final consumers'" (in "VAT Code and VRITT Notes and Comments"; Coordination and Organization by Clotilde Celorico Palma and António Carlos dos Santos; 2014; Almedina; p. 563).

17. According to Article 3 of the VRITT, "An intra-community acquisition is generally considered to be the obtaining of the power of disposal, in a manner corresponding to the exercise of the right of ownership, of a tangible movable asset whose dispatch or transport to national territory, by the seller, by the purchaser or on their behalf, for delivery to the purchaser, has begun in another Member State".

18. However, no. 1 of Article 5 of the same statute establishes that the following are not subject to tax: intra-community acquisitions of goods when the following conditions are met simultaneously:

a) Are carried out by a taxable person referred to in subparagraphs b) and c) of no. 1 of Article 2;

b) The goods are not new means of transport nor goods subject to special consumption taxes;

c) The overall value of the acquisitions, net of VAT, due or paid in the Member States where the dispatch or transport of the goods begins, did not exceed in the previous calendar year or in the current calendar year the amount of (euro) 10,000 or, in the case of a single acquisition, does not exceed that amount".

1. Not verifying, cumulatively, the said conditions, as is the case in the present proceedings, in which, although the Applicant develops an exempt activity, under subparagraph 2) of Article 9 of the VAT Code and therefore has classification under Article 2, no. 1, subparagraph b) of the VRITT, the overall value of the acquisitions exceeds the limit of €10,000.00, set out in subparagraph c) of no. 1 of Article 5 of the VRITT, the intra-community acquisition of goods is subject to VAT.

2. With regard to the right to deduct the tax incurred in intra-community acquisitions of goods, Article 19 of the VRITT provides that "For the purposes of the application of the provision of Article 19 of the VAT Code, the tax paid on intra-community acquisitions of goods may be deducted from the tax levied on taxable operations".

3. Thus, the deductibility of VAT assessed on intra-community acquisitions of goods is provided for, similar to that established in Article 19, no. 1 of the VAT Code for internal operations and importation of goods;

4. From the combination of Articles 19, no. 1 and 33 of the VRITT, there is a referral to the general rules of Articles 19 and following of the VAT Code;

5. In the present case, the present Applicant carried out, exclusively, an activity that did not confer the right to deduction, in light of the provision of Article 20, no. 1 of the VAT Code, by benefiting from exemption, under Article 9, subparagraph 2), of the VAT Code, for which reason the VAT incurred in the intra-community acquisitions of the equipment cannot be deducted.

6. On the other hand, and contrary to what was argued, the sale of the equipment to the lessor was not subject to taxation under VAT, as it was covered by the exemption in subparagraph 32) of Article 9 of the VAT Code.

7. Indeed, the following are exempt from VAT, under this legal provision, "Transfers of assets exclusively used in an exempt activity, when they have not been subject to the right to deduction (...)".

8. Since the VAT incurred with the intra-community acquisitions of goods could not be the subject of deduction, the tax assessed should have been paid into the State treasury, under Article 22, no. 2 of the VRITT.

9. Consequently, as the present Applicant did not proceed with the assessment and payment of the VAT due regarding the intra-community acquisitions of goods referred to above, the Tax Authorities promoted the corrections that were due, in light of the provision of nos. 1 and 2 of Article 87 of the VAT Code, with the additional assessments claimed not being affected by any illegality.

10. The legal conformity of the acts that are the object of the present arbitration petition is evident, and consequently, the claims filed by the Applicant are lacking in merit.

Let us see the legal framework of the situation sub judice.

Of the intra-community acquisition of goods

Article 18, no. 3 of the General Tax Law (GTL) establishes, as a general rule, that "(the) taxable person is the natural or legal person, the assets or the organization of fact or law that, under the terms of the law, is bound to fulfill the tax obligation, whether as a direct taxpayer, substitute or responsible party."

Within the scope of VAT, the definition of the taxable person is expressly provided in Article 2 of the VAT Code, which establishes, then, the rules of subjective scope of this tax.

With interest for the case in question, the provision in subparagraph d) of Article 2, no. 1 of the VAT Code is highlighted, according to which the following are taxable persons: "Natural or legal persons that carry out intra-community operations under the terms of the VAT Regime for Intra-Community Transactions." This subparagraph results from the transposition of Directive No. 91/680/CEE, of 16 December, amending the VAT Code regarding intra-community transactions (Official Journal 28 December).

Under subparagraph a) of Article 1 of the VRITT, the following are subject to VAT in national territory: intra-community acquisitions of goods made in national territory, for consideration, by a taxable person referred to in no. 1 of Article 2, acting as such, when the seller is a taxable person, acting as such, registered for VAT purposes in another Member State that is not covered there by any particular exemption regime for small businesses;

In turn, Article 2, no. 1, subparagraph b) of the same statute, considers as taxable persons for the tax on intra-community acquisition of goods, "Natural or legal persons mentioned in subparagraph a) of no. 1 of Article 2 of the VAT Code that carry out exclusively transfers of goods or provision of services that do not confer any right to deduction".

According to Article 3 of the VRITT, "An intra-community acquisition is generally considered to be the obtaining of the power of disposal, in a manner corresponding to the exercise of the right of ownership, of a tangible movable asset whose dispatch or transport to national territory, by the seller, by the purchaser or on their behalf, for delivery to the purchaser, has begun in another Member State".

However, no. 1 of Article 5 of the same statute establishes that the following are not subject to tax: intra-community acquisitions of goods when the following conditions are met simultaneously:

a) Are carried out by a taxable person referred to in subparagraphs b) and c) of no. 1 of Article 2;

b) The goods are not new means of transport nor goods subject to special consumption taxes;

c) The overall value of the acquisitions, net of VAT, due or paid in the Member States where the dispatch or transport of the goods begins, did not exceed in the previous calendar year or in the current calendar year the amount of (euro) 10,000 or, in the case of a single acquisition, does not exceed that amount".

Given that the goods acquired by the Applicant were the object of financial lease, it is important to determine whether, for VAT purposes, the operation in question constitutes a financial lease, as the Applicant argues, or an intra-community acquisition followed by an operation of transfer of goods and/or provision of services.

Based on the facts brought before these proceedings, it follows that the Applicant is a VAT taxable person, without the right to deduction, having acquired two medical devices from a taxable person with registered office in Spain. Subsequently, the Applicant sold to B…, S.A. the equipment acquired in Spain, which, in turn, leased the assets to the Applicant through a financial lease contract.

Considering that VAT is a general tax on consumption, which applies, as a rule, to all economic transactions carried out for consideration, this tax applies, in principle, to each transfer of goods and provision of services.

Thus, in accordance with the provision of Article 1 of the VAT Code and Article 3 of the VRITT, it is understood that the Applicant carried out an intra-community acquisition of goods, as this obtained with the acquisition of the goods from the taxable person in Spain the power of disposal, in a manner corresponding to the exercise of the right of ownership, of two medical devices whose dispatch or transport to national territory, by the seller, by the purchaser or on their behalf, for delivery to the purchaser.

The fact that the acquired goods were subsequently transferred does not permit subsuming the operations carried out into a single material operation, especially since the goods were initially acquired from a taxable person in Spain and only subsequently, already as their owner, did the Applicant proceed to the financial lease of those to another taxable person in Portugal.

Contrary to what was argued by the Applicant, it is not possible to consider that the Applicant carried out only one economic operation, since it is clear that there was a transfer of the right of ownership from the taxable person in Spain to the Applicant and only thereafter, in that capacity, was a financial lease contract concluded in Portugal.

Thus, the intra-community acquisition carried out by the Applicant would only not be subject to VAT, if the conditions provided in Article 5, no. 1 of the VRITT transcribed above were met.

It so happens that, according to the facts proven in these proceedings, the overall value of the acquisitions exceeds the amount of €10,000. Not being a progressive limit, but rather a threshold value, with the acquisition being globally of a value exceeding €10,000, it is wholly subject to VAT.

It is concluded, thus, that the Applicant carried out an intra-community acquisition of goods subject to and not exempt from VAT, and is therefore obligated to assess VAT regarding that acquisition, which is independent of the financial lease transaction carried out subsequently.

Of the right to deduction

In accordance with the provision of no. 1 of Article 19 of the VRITT, "For the purposes of the application of the provision of Article 19 of the VAT Code, the tax paid on intra-community acquisitions of goods may be deducted from the tax levied on taxable operations."

By virtue of the provision of Article 33 of the VRITT, the general regime provided in Article 19 and following of the VAT Code applies to the exercise of the right to deduction regarding intra-community acquisitions of goods.

In accordance with the provision of subparagraph a) of no. 1 of Article 19 of the VAT Code "For the determination of the tax due, taxable persons deduct, under the terms of the following articles, from the tax levied on the taxable operations they carried out: a) The tax due or paid for the acquisition of goods and services from other taxable persons;"

In turn, Article 20 of the VAT Code establishes the following:

"1 - Only the tax incurred on goods or services acquired, imported or used by the taxable person for the purpose of carrying out the following operations may be deducted:

a) Transfers of goods and provision of services subject to tax and not exempt from it;

b) Transfers of goods and provision of services consisting of:

I) Exports and operations exempt under Article 14;

II) Operations carried out abroad that would be taxable if carried out in national territory;

III) Provision of services whose value is included in the taxable base of goods imported, under subparagraph b) of no. 2 of Article 17;

IV) Transfers of goods and provision of services covered by subparagraphs b), c), d) and e) of no. 1 and by nos. 8 and 10 of Article 15;

V) Exempt operations under nos. 27) and 28) of Article 9, when the recipient is established or domiciled outside the European Community or that are directly connected to goods intended to be exported to countries not belonging to the same Community;

VI) Exempt operations under Article 7 of Decree-Law No. 394-B/84, of 26 December.

2 - However, it does not confer the right to deduction the tax relating to operations that give rise to the payments referred to in subparagraph c) of no. 6 of Article 16"

Thus, and as the Applicant argues, VAT taxable persons have the right to deduct the VAT they have incurred.

Nevertheless, the right to deduction is only possible when the taxable person carries out taxable operations, in accordance with the provision of Article 20 of the VAT Code transcribed above. In situations where the taxable person incurs VAT that relates to the development of an exempt activity, the VAT incurred should be incorporated in the price of the exempt transactions, as the same is, in principle, non-deductible.[1]

Having regard to the principle of neutrality, which prohibits distortions of competition and imposes equality of treatment of persons with respect to the same type of operations[2], the interpretation of the norms already identified relating to the right to exemption and the right to deduction of VAT must be carried out in a restrictive manner, since the legislator deliberately chose to exempt certain specific services from VAT, such as health services, with the consequence that VAT incurred on inputs is not deductible.

Considering that the Applicant is a taxable person that carries out exclusively VAT-exempt operations, the VAT incurred with the intra-community acquisitions cannot be deducted.

In sum: in accordance with the principle of neutrality, the Applicant cannot deduct the VAT incurred with the intra-community acquisitions carried out, since it does not carry out any of the operations provided for in Article 20, no. 1 of the VAT Code, applicable by virtue of Article 33 of the VRITT.

IV. VALUE OF THE CASE

In accordance with the provision of Article 306, no. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, Article 97-A, no. 1 a) of the Tax Procedure Code and Article 3, no. 2 of the Regulation on Costs in Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the petition is fixed at €26,171.90.

V. COSTS

Under the terms of the provisions of Articles 12, no. 2 and 22, no. 4, both of the LRATM, and Article 4, no. 4 of the Regulation on Costs of Tax Arbitration Proceedings, the value of the arbitration fee is set at €1,530.00, under Table I of the mentioned Regulation, to be borne by the Applicant.

Let it be notified.

Lisbon, 25 October 2015

The Arbitrator

Magda Feliciano

(The text of this decision was prepared by computer, under Article 131, no. 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable by referral from Article 29, no. 1, subparagraph e) of Decree-Law No. 10/2011, of 20 January (LRATM), with its drafting governed by the spelling prior to the 1990 Orthographic Agreement.)

[1] See The Right to Deduct under EU VAT, by Ad van Doesum and Gert-Jan van Norden, in International VAT Monitor, September/October 2011, pp. page 326, IBFD.

[2] In this sense, see in particular, the Decisions of 7 September 1999, Case Gregg, of 26 May 2005, Case Kingscrest Associates and Montecello, of 28 June 2007, Case JP Morgan Flemming Claverhouse, Proc. C-363/05, Coll., p. I-5517, nos. 46 and 47.