Global Site
Argentina Aruba Barbados Bolivia Brazil Canada Cayman Islands Chile Colombia Costa Rica Curacao El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Paraguay Peru Puerto Rico Saint Martin Suriname United States Uruguay Venezuela
Australia Cambodia China Hawaii Hong Kong India Indonesia Japan Macau Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal New Zealand Pakistan Philippines Singapore South Korea Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand Vietnam
Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Kazakhstan Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Moldova Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Tajikistan Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Uzbekistan
Algeria Angola Bahrain Egypt Ghana Israel Jordan Kenya Kuwait Lebanon Liberia Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Nigeria Oman Qatar Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone South Africa Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda United Arab Emirates Yemen
Contacto
home Temás de Interés
Newsletter Fiscal July 25

Tax Newsletter

July 25

Daniel Tarroja, Tax Partner
30/07/2025
Newsletter Fiscal July 25

Case law:

Value Added Tax (VAT)

  • Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 3 July 2025. VAT. Penalty.
    • The European Court hears case C-733/23, which is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court in Burgas, Bulgaria. The questions raised and on which the CJEU must give a ruling are, first of all, whether Article 325 TFEU, Article 273 of the VAT Directive and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as permitting national legislation under which a single overall measure of “sealing business premises and prohibiting access thereto” may be imposed in respect of multiple failures to fulfil tax obligations, where that measure is aimed exclusively at limiting the adverse effects of the offence, including the extent of the damage to the financial interests of the European Union, but not at punishing the offender, without that measure limiting the possibility of pursuing against that offender, in respect of each of those failures to fulfil tax obligations, independent proceedings of a punitive nature imposing on the taxable person a measure in the form of a financial penalty, it being the duty of the national court to examine and determine in each individual case which of the two objectives is pursued by the coercive administrative measure of “sealing business premises and prohibiting access thereto” imposed at an earlier stage: prevention and restriction or punishment. Secondly, whether the aforementioned articles of the TFEU and the VAT Directive and Article 49(3) of the Charter should be interpreted as precluding a regime of penalties such as those at issue in the main proceedings which, irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the offences, provides for a significant lower limit for the penalty in the form of a financial penalty, without providing for the possibility of imposing a penalty below the minimum amount laid down in the law or of replacing that penalty with a more lenient one. And thirdly, whether the aforementioned articles of the TFEU and the VAT Directive and the first paragraph of Article 47, Article 48(1) and Article 49(3) of the Charter should be interpreted as precluding national legislation which allows, in respect of multiple failures to fulfil tax obligations, the imposition of a single overall measure of “sealing business premises and prohibiting access thereto” and – before that measure becomes final – its provisional enforcement, without giving the court and the offender itself the opportunity to review the proportionality of that measure in relation to the seriousness of each individual administrative offence.
    • The CJEU resolves the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling and finds, firstly, that Article 325 TFEU, Article 273 of the VAT Directive, and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the imposition of a financial penalty on a taxable person on the ground that he or she has not issued fiscal cash register receipts relating to sales made where that offence has already given rise to the imposition of a coercive administrative measure to seal the business premises in which that offence was committed and prohibiting access thereto. Secondly, it finds that Article 273 of the VAT Directive and Article 49(3) of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for, as an administrative penalty, a financial measure of a high amount without the court hearing a challenge to that measure having the procedural possibility of imposing an amount less than that provided for by that legislation or another more lenient type of penalty. Regarding the third question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Court considers that it is clearly inadmissible as it is not related to the subject-matter of the main proceedings and, consequently, there is no need to rule on it.
  • Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 July 2025.VAT. Liability.
    • The European Court hears case C-276/24, which is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic. The question raised, and which the CJEU has to rule on, is whether Article 205 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of the principle of the proportionality, precludes a national practice whereby the liability for the payment of value added tax by a supplier of a taxable transaction may be applied to the recipient of that transaction, even though the recipient of the taxable transaction has already been denied a right to a tax deduction due to its involvement in tax fraud.
    • The CJEU resolves the question referred and finds that Article 205 of the VAT Directive, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018/1695 of 6 November 2018, read in the light of the principle of the proportionality, must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice which imposes on a taxable person, recipient of a supply of goods for consideration, a joint and several obligation to pay the VAT due from the supplier of those goods, even though the recipient of that supply of goods was refused the right to deduct the input VAT due or paid on the ground that he, she or it knew or ought to have known that he, she or it was participating in VAT evasion.

Other decisions of interest:

  • Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 July 2025. Excise duties. Accrual.
    • The European Court hears case T-534/24, which is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court of Osijek, Croatia. The question raised and on which the General Court must give a ruling is whether Council Directive 2008/118/EC, in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national practice (and legislation) which provides for an obligation to pay excise duty on energy products where the excise goods have not been used and an excise duty liability has been established in respect of goods stated in falsified invoices for the purchase of energy products which, precisely because they have been falsified, do not give rise to the right to deduct input VAT because there are fictitious supplies of energy products, as has also been finally established in criminal proceedings.
    • The General Court (Chamber giving preliminary rulings) rules on the question raised and holds that Article 7 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty, and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by the national authorities, which provides for the accrual of excise duties on the basis of a fictitious supply of products subject to excise duties and which appears on false invoices.

Administrative legal commentary:

Value Added Tax (VAT)

  • Binding Consultation V0320-25 of 25 March 2025.VAT. Liability.
    • The petitioner is an individual established in Spain who has sold 31 used books at a price lower than their purchase price through a digital interface over a period of two months. The query raised concerns whether the petitioner will be considered a businessperson or professional for VAT purposes for the sale of used books as they have exceeded the threshold of the DAC7 Directive.
    • The DGT responds to the query raised and determines that, in accordance with section 4(1) of the VAT Act, the sales are subject to VAT as supplies of goods. In the same vein, in application of section 5(2) of the VAT Act and the information provided in the consultation letter, due to the number of units sold, the digital interface is obliged to inform the tax authorities of the sales made in accordance with Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 of 22 March 2021. In line with the foregoing, the DGT specifies that the transaction referred to in the consultation letter will be subject to VAT, in particular when the aforementioned individual intends to intervene in the production of goods and services which will determine the performance of a business or professional activity for VAT purposes. In this case, the petitioner must comply with section 164(1) of the VAT Act.

Personal Income Tax (PIT)

  • Binding Consultation V0439-25 of 21 March 2025. Personal Income Tax. Special regime for inpatriates.
    • The petitioner is an individual who is a tax resident in Spain and covered by the special tax regime applicable to workers, professionals, entrepreneurs and investors posted to Spanish territory under section 93 of the Personal Income Tax Act. The query raised concerns whether the per diem, maintenance and accommodation regime regulated in article 9 of the Personal Income Tax Regulations is applicable in relation to taxpayers covered by this special regime.
    • The DGT responds to the query raised and determines that, based on article 114 of the Personal Income Tax Regulations and sections 93(2) of the Personal Income Tax Act and 24(1) of the Non-Resident Income Tax Act, the petitioner, who is subject to the special tax regime applicable to workers, professionals, entrepreneurs and investors posted to Spanish territory established in section 93 of the Personal Income Tax Act, will be taxed on income obtained in Spanish territory in keeping with the rules established in the Non-Resident Income Tax Act. Under this rule, the full amount of income from work obtained without the intermediation of a permanent establishment shall be determined in accordance with the rules in the Personal Income Tax Act, which means any amounts received as per diem and travel expenses will be exempt from tax when they meet the requirements and limits set out in the aforementioned article 9 of the Personal Income Tax Regulations.