This month’s VAT review covers the important CJEU decision in P sp. z o.o. which appears to extend businesses’ responsibility for preventing VAT fraud in the context of the activities of their employees. In SC Adient Ltd & Co KG (Case C-533/22), the Advocate General has attempted to draw a line under arguments increasingly used by tax authorities that an independent subsidiary should be treated as a fixed establishment of its foreign parent. Finally, the Supreme Court has thrown out the argument that the removal of low value consignment relief from mail order deliveries to UK customers from the Channel Islands in 2012 was contrary to EU law in Jersey Choice Ltd v HM Treasury.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
This month’s VAT review covers the important CJEU decision in P sp. z o.o. which appears to extend businesses’ responsibility for preventing VAT fraud in the context of the activities of their employees. In SC Adient Ltd & Co KG (Case C-533/22), the Advocate General has attempted to draw a line under arguments increasingly used by tax authorities that an independent subsidiary should be treated as a fixed establishment of its foreign parent. Finally, the Supreme Court has thrown out the argument that the removal of low value consignment relief from mail order deliveries to UK customers from the Channel Islands in 2012 was contrary to EU law in Jersey Choice Ltd v HM Treasury.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
