One year on from the Kretztechnik judgment Paul Harris of Monckton Chambers explains its continuing significance
The ECJ judgment in Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz Case C-465/03 [2005] STC 1118 (Kretztechnik) now almost exactly one year old remains of great importance for two principal reasons: first it remains the Court's latest word on the meaning of 'economic activity' in relation to share transactions; second it has further developed and clarified the law of input tax deduction — and in a manner that is potentially of direct benefit to the taxpayer.
The Facts
The Austrian taxpayer company sold medical equipment. It wished to raise working capital by issuing new shares...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
One year on from the Kretztechnik judgment Paul Harris of Monckton Chambers explains its continuing significance
The ECJ judgment in Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz Case C-465/03 [2005] STC 1118 (Kretztechnik) now almost exactly one year old remains of great importance for two principal reasons: first it remains the Court's latest word on the meaning of 'economic activity' in relation to share transactions; second it has further developed and clarified the law of input tax deduction — and in a manner that is potentially of direct benefit to the taxpayer.
The Facts
The Austrian taxpayer company sold medical equipment. It wished to raise working capital by issuing new shares...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
90a1d87b-c1b5-43c3-a720-cd324830adee.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=1b2d0a7e_1)
