互联网与服务供应接受者的“固定机构”概念:案例C-605/12 (Welmory)

B. Terra
{"title":"互联网与服务供应接受者的“固定机构”概念:案例C-605/12 (Welmory)","authors":"B. Terra","doi":"10.5235/20488432.3.3.210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Under the EU VAT rules the place where a customer has established his business or has a fixed establishment is decisive in determining where services are (deemed to be) rendered. Defining the concept of the place where the undertaking has established its business does not, raise ‘problems’. It is clear that the term ‘should be understood in its technical sense [that is to say, as referring to] ... the registered office, as indicated by the statutes of the company owning the supplier undertaking’. The concept of a fixed establishment, however, is not the same in all Member States. It is remarkable that the VAT Directives do not provide for an accurate definition of a fixed establishment and (until recently) the only guidelines were therefore the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Welmory case is discussed below which should shed some light on internet activities to and from a fixed establishment in another (Member) State than where the business establishment is located. The case deals with a dispute concerning the VAT payable by Welmory sp Zoo (Welmory Poland) during the months January to April 2010. Welmory Poland had entered into a cooperation agreement with a Cypriot company, Welmory Ltd. According to the agreement the Cypriot company would run a website in Polish on which auctions could be held. On this website Welmory Poland would market and sell goods for its own account. It was however only possible to buy these products if the customers had acquired packets of ‘bids’ in advance, that is, the right to make an offer to purchase goods being auctioned at a","PeriodicalId":114680,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Internet and the concept of ‘fixed establishment’ of the recipient of a supply of services: Case C-605/12 (Welmory)\",\"authors\":\"B. Terra\",\"doi\":\"10.5235/20488432.3.3.210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Under the EU VAT rules the place where a customer has established his business or has a fixed establishment is decisive in determining where services are (deemed to be) rendered. Defining the concept of the place where the undertaking has established its business does not, raise ‘problems’. It is clear that the term ‘should be understood in its technical sense [that is to say, as referring to] ... the registered office, as indicated by the statutes of the company owning the supplier undertaking’. The concept of a fixed establishment, however, is not the same in all Member States. It is remarkable that the VAT Directives do not provide for an accurate definition of a fixed establishment and (until recently) the only guidelines were therefore the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Welmory case is discussed below which should shed some light on internet activities to and from a fixed establishment in another (Member) State than where the business establishment is located. The case deals with a dispute concerning the VAT payable by Welmory sp Zoo (Welmory Poland) during the months January to April 2010. Welmory Poland had entered into a cooperation agreement with a Cypriot company, Welmory Ltd. According to the agreement the Cypriot company would run a website in Polish on which auctions could be held. On this website Welmory Poland would market and sell goods for its own account. It was however only possible to buy these products if the customers had acquired packets of ‘bids’ in advance, that is, the right to make an offer to purchase goods being auctioned at a\",\"PeriodicalId\":114680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of VAT/GST Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of VAT/GST Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5235/20488432.3.3.210\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of VAT/GST Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5235/20488432.3.3.210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据欧盟增值税规则,客户建立业务或拥有固定机构的地方是决定服务(被视为)提供的决定性因素。界定承保公司设立业务地点的概念并不会引起“问题”。很明显,这个术语应该从其技术意义上理解[也就是说,指的是]……注册办事处,如拥有供应商企业的公司章程所示。但是,固定机构的概念在所有会员国中并不相同。值得注意的是,增值税指令没有提供固定机构的准确定义,因此(直到最近)唯一的指导方针是欧洲联盟法院(CJEU)的判决。下面讨论了Welmory案例,它应该对与商业机构所在地以外的另一个(成员国)固定机构往来的互联网活动有所启示。本案件涉及Welmory sp Zoo (Welmory Poland)在2010年1月至4月期间应付的增值税纠纷。Welmory波兰公司与塞浦路斯公司Welmory Ltd.签订了一项合作协议。根据协议,这家塞浦路斯公司将在波兰运营一个网站,拍卖可以在该网站上举行。在这个网站上,Welmory波兰将为自己的账户营销和销售商品。然而,只有在顾客事先获得了“出价”包的情况下,才有可能购买这些产品,也就是说,顾客有权出价购买以价格拍卖的商品
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Internet and the concept of ‘fixed establishment’ of the recipient of a supply of services: Case C-605/12 (Welmory)
Under the EU VAT rules the place where a customer has established his business or has a fixed establishment is decisive in determining where services are (deemed to be) rendered. Defining the concept of the place where the undertaking has established its business does not, raise ‘problems’. It is clear that the term ‘should be understood in its technical sense [that is to say, as referring to] ... the registered office, as indicated by the statutes of the company owning the supplier undertaking’. The concept of a fixed establishment, however, is not the same in all Member States. It is remarkable that the VAT Directives do not provide for an accurate definition of a fixed establishment and (until recently) the only guidelines were therefore the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Welmory case is discussed below which should shed some light on internet activities to and from a fixed establishment in another (Member) State than where the business establishment is located. The case deals with a dispute concerning the VAT payable by Welmory sp Zoo (Welmory Poland) during the months January to April 2010. Welmory Poland had entered into a cooperation agreement with a Cypriot company, Welmory Ltd. According to the agreement the Cypriot company would run a website in Polish on which auctions could be held. On this website Welmory Poland would market and sell goods for its own account. It was however only possible to buy these products if the customers had acquired packets of ‘bids’ in advance, that is, the right to make an offer to purchase goods being auctioned at a
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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