The Logistics Service Providers’ Pre-tax Deduction of Import VAT Is Still a Pipe Dream and the Recent ECJ Decision Hasn’t Changed That: Or Has It?

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Jöran Gesinn
{"title":"The Logistics Service Providers’ Pre-tax Deduction of Import VAT Is Still a Pipe Dream and the Recent ECJ Decision Hasn’t Changed That: Or Has It?","authors":"Jöran Gesinn","doi":"10.54648/gtcj2022017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to general opinion in Germany and further EU Member States, all questions regarding pre-tax deduction of import VAT by a logistics service provider (‘LSP’) have been settled: there is no right to deduction without power of disposition at the time of the import. As LSPs typically become debtor of the import VAT, but do not dispose of the imported goods, they have been excluded from pre-tax deduction in the past. Besides causing costs for involved companies in millions of Euro, this clearly violates the principle of neutrality as one of the core principles of the EU VAT directive, still no steps have been taken to rectify the situation. The requirement of power of disposition is mainly derived from the cost formula test the Court of Justice of the European Union ECJ has been traditionally applying to VAT cases. In its recent Weindel-order of 10 October 2020, C- 621/19, the ECJ has – for the first time – amended the cost formula with regard to import VAT specific aspects. This article investigates whether in the light of Weindel, power of disposition can still be made an obligatory requirement of the right to pre-tax deduction of import VAT.\nValue added tax, VAT, pre-tax deduction, indirect representative, logistics service provider, cost-formula test, principle of neutrality of VAT, Council Directive 2006/112/EC, VAT-directive, upstream import cost, power of disposition","PeriodicalId":12728,"journal":{"name":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Trade and Customs Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/gtcj2022017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to general opinion in Germany and further EU Member States, all questions regarding pre-tax deduction of import VAT by a logistics service provider (‘LSP’) have been settled: there is no right to deduction without power of disposition at the time of the import. As LSPs typically become debtor of the import VAT, but do not dispose of the imported goods, they have been excluded from pre-tax deduction in the past. Besides causing costs for involved companies in millions of Euro, this clearly violates the principle of neutrality as one of the core principles of the EU VAT directive, still no steps have been taken to rectify the situation. The requirement of power of disposition is mainly derived from the cost formula test the Court of Justice of the European Union ECJ has been traditionally applying to VAT cases. In its recent Weindel-order of 10 October 2020, C- 621/19, the ECJ has – for the first time – amended the cost formula with regard to import VAT specific aspects. This article investigates whether in the light of Weindel, power of disposition can still be made an obligatory requirement of the right to pre-tax deduction of import VAT. Value added tax, VAT, pre-tax deduction, indirect representative, logistics service provider, cost-formula test, principle of neutrality of VAT, Council Directive 2006/112/EC, VAT-directive, upstream import cost, power of disposition
物流服务提供商税前抵扣进口增值税仍是一个白日梦,最近欧洲法院的裁决并没有改变这一点:或者是吗?
根据德国和其他欧盟成员国的普遍意见,所有关于物流服务提供商(“LSP”)税前扣除进口增值税的问题都已经解决:在进口时没有处置权,就没有扣除的权利。由于物流服务提供商通常成为进口增值税的债务人,但不处理进口货物,因此他们过去一直被排除在税前扣除之外。这不仅给相关企业造成了数百万欧元的成本,而且明显违反了欧盟增值税指令核心原则之一的中立原则,至今仍未采取任何措施来纠正这种情况。处罚权的要求主要来源于欧盟法院传统上适用于增值税案件的成本公式检验。在最近的2020年10月10日weindel命令C- 621/19中,欧洲法院首次修订了有关进口增值税具体方面的成本公式。本文从温德尔的观点出发,考察处置权是否仍然可以作为进口增值税税前抵扣权的一项强制性要求。增值税,增值税,税前扣除,间接代表,物流服务商,成本公式测试,增值税中立原则,理事会指令2006/112/EC,增值税指令,上游进口成本,处处权
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Trade and Customs Journal
Global Trade and Customs Journal INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信