Why does Congress not support the GST bill

Sales tax pp 82-135 | Cite as

abstract

The other service can be active (doing) or passive (toleration or omission of an act or a condition, cf. § 3 para. 9 sentence 2 UStG). Such passive forms of other service can be, for example, the renunciation of the exercise of a trade, the tolerance of immissions or border development or the granting of a crossing right. The active form of the other service can usually be covered by the term service (also the term under European law, cf. Art. 24, Paragraph 1 of the VAT Directive). However, since the qualification as active or passive other service does not change anything in terms of its VAT treatment, and therefore no different legal consequences arise, an investigation does not need to be carried out in this respect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

literature

  1. Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of November 28, 2006 on the common VAT system, Official Journal of the EU 2006 No. L 347, p. 1 (valid since January 01, 2007) .Google Scholar
  2. Directive 77/388 / EEC on the harmonization of sales taxes of May 17, 1977, Official Journal EC 1977 No. L 145, p. 1 (valid until December 31, 2006) .Google Scholar
  3. See in detail Rüth, The implementation of the 6th VAT Directive in national law, Stuttgart 2005.Google Scholar
  4. Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of November 28, 2006 on the common VAT system, OJ 2006 No. L 347, p. 1 (valid since January 1, 2007) .Google Scholar
  5. Directive 77/388 / EEC on the harmonization of sales taxes of May 17, 1977, Official Journal EC 1977 No. L 145, p. 1 (valid until December 31, 2006) .Google Scholar
  6. See ECJ of January 25, 2001, case C-427/97, ​​ECJ 2001, p. I-637 = UR 2001, p. 265 (Commission / France). Google Scholar
  7. See ECJ of January 16, 2003, case C-315/00, ECJ 2003, p. I-563 = UR 2003, p. 86 (Maierhofer). Google Scholar
  8. ECJ of April 13, 2006, Case C-166/05 (Heger) .Google Scholar
  9. Langer in Reiß / Kraeusel / Langer, UStG, § 3a Rn. 45 f. Google Scholar
  10. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3a Rn. 75.Google Scholar
  11. Langer in Reiß / Kraeusel / Langer, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 65 f. Google Scholar
  12. Section 34 (9) UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  13. See section 25 (2) UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  14. ECJ of April 13, 2006, Case C-166/05 (Heger) .Google Scholar
  15. See ECJ of January 25, 2001, case C-427/97, ​​EuGHE 2001, p. I-637 = UR 2001, p. 265 (Commission / France). Google Scholar
  16. Section 36 (7) sentence 1 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  17. Stadie in Rau / Dürrwächter, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 120.Google Scholar
  18. According to Art. 3 Para. 1 of Regulation (EC) No. 1777/2005, the assembly of a machine from provided components is "work on movable physical objects" .Google Scholar
  19. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, §36 Abs. 8 S. 1 UStR 2008.Google Scholar
  20. Section 36 (1) sentence 4 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  21. ECJ of 03.03.1995, case C-16/93, ECJ 1994, p. I-743 = UR 1994, p. 399 (Tolsma). Google Scholar
  22. BFH from 23.11. 2000, IV R 48/99, BFH / NV 2001, p. 551. Google Scholar
  23. See section 36 (4) UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  24. BFH of July 25, 1996, V R 7/95, BStBl. 1997 II, p. 154 (parachuting) .Google Scholar
  25. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 92.Google Scholar
  26. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 93.Google Scholar
  27. Section 36 (1) sentence 4 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  28. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8.71 .; Longer in Reiss / Kraeusel / Langer, § 3 a marginal number 107. Google Scholar
  29. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3 a No. 129. Google Scholar
  30. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8.69 with reference to the ECJ of December 13, 2001, case C-235/00. ECJ 2001, p. I-10237 = UR 2002, p. 84, item 39 (CSC Financial Services). Google Scholar
  31. See ECJ of July 21, 2007, case C-453/05, UR 2007, p. 617 (Volker Ludwig). Google Scholar
  32. So also Langer in Reiss / Kraeusel / Langer, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 108; Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 137.Google Scholar
  33. BFH dated September 1, 1994, XI B 21/94, BFH / NV 1995, p. 458, BFH dated January 16, 2003, VB 47/02, BFH / NV 2003, p. 830, section 37 (2) UStR 2008 with Reference to ECJ of May 27, 2004, case C-68/03, ECJ 2004, p. I-5879 (Lipjes) .Google Scholar
  34. OFD Hannover from June 15, 2005, DStR 2005, p. 1447; OFD Koblenz from September 19, 2005, UVR 2006, p. 100. Google Scholar
  35. So also the ECJ of April 1st, 2004, case C-90/02, ECJ 2004, p. I-3303 (Bockemühl) .Google Scholar
  36. Similar to Stadie, VAT law, margin no. 8.76 Google Scholar
  37. See last ECJ of March 13, 2008, case C-437/06, HFR 2008, p. 526 (Securenta); Rüth in UStB 2007, p. 77; Rüth / Hüllmann. EU-UStB 2008, p. 9 Google Scholar
  38. Similar to Stadie, VAT law, margin no. 8.82 Google Scholar
  39. Stadie in Rau / Dürrwächter, Section 3 a marginal number 175.Google Scholar
  40. Stadie in Rau / Dürrwächter, Section 3 a marginal number 170.Google Scholar
  41. See ECJ of September 27, 2007, case C-409/04, HFR 2007, p. 1258 (Teleos et al.) = UR 2007, 774 and of February 21, 2008, case C-271/06, HFR 2008, p . 408 = EU-UStB 2008, 20 f (Netto supermarket). Google Scholar
  42. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8.79, who only wants to apply this to cases of “necessary doubts.” Google Scholar
  43. ECJ of September 27, 2007, case C-409/04, HFR 2007, p. 1258 = UR 2007, 774. (Teleos et al.). Google Scholar
  44. ECJ of February 21, 2008, case C-271/06, HFR 2008, p. 408 = EU-UStB 2008, 20 f (Netto supermarket). Google Scholar
  45. Art. 7 Regulation (EC) No. 1777/2005, ABl. EU No. L 288 S. 1. Google Scholar
  46. Section 39 (2) sentence 4 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  47. BFH from 24.09. 1987, V R 105/77, Federal Tax Gazette. 1988 II, p. 303. Google Scholar
  48. ECJ of March 15, 2001, Case C-108/00, ECJ 2001, p. I-2361 (SPI); ECJ of June 5, 2003, case C-438/01, ECJ 2003, p. I-5617) .Google Scholar
  49. The sales tax must always be legally neutral, this results among other things from the case law of the ECJ, see ECJ of 04.12.1990 Rs C-186/89, EuGHE 1990, S. I-4363 (van Tiem) .Google Scholar
  50. OJ EU No. L 288, p. 1. Google Scholar
  51. ECJ of December 6, 2007 Case C-401/06, HFR 2008, p. 195 (Commission / Federal Republic of Germany): “... the execution of the will [is] neither a service nor a service mainly and usually performed by a lawyer dar ... which is similar to those of lawyers. "; BFH of June 5, 2003, V R 25/02, Federal Tax Gazette. 2003 II, p. 734 Google Scholar
  52. ECJ of September 16, 1997, case C-145/96, ECJ 1997, I-4857 (von Hoffmann). Google Scholar
  53. ECJ of October 27, 2005, case C-41/04, ECJ 2005, p. I-9433 (Levob Verzekeringen) .Google Scholar
  54. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 108.Google Scholar
  55. Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 108.Google Scholar
  56. Section 39 (12) sentence 3 UStR 2008; Bavarian State Ministry of Finance, 36 - S-7117 f - 9/2 - 21707, bek. OFD Nürnberg S-7117 f - 10 / St 43 of 02/05/88, coordinated state decree of April 20, 1988. Google Scholar
  57. Langer in Reiß / Kraeusel / Langer, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 185.Google Scholar
  58. Section 25 Paragraph 2 No. 7 Sentence 3 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  59. See section 39 (18) UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  60. See BT-Drks. 8/2827, p. 72. Google Scholar
  61. Langer in Reiß / Kraeusel / Langer, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 191.Google Scholar
  62. See section 39 (2) sentence 4 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  63. So also Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, § 3 a Rn. 187.Google Scholar
  64. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8.69 with reference to the ECJ of December 13, 2001, case C-235/00. ECJ 2001, p. I-10237 = UR 2002, p. 84, item 39 (CSC Financial Services). Google Scholar
  65. See ECJ of July 21, 2007, case C-453/05, UR 2007, p. 617 (Volker Ludwig). Google Scholar
  66. For example Langer in Reiss / Kraeusel / Langer, § 3 a marginal no. 202.Google Scholar
  67. See ECJ of January 25, 2001, case C-427/97, ​​ECJ 2001, p. I-637 = UR 2001, p. 265 (Commission / France). Google Scholar
  68. So probably also Pflüger in Hartmann / Metzenmacher, E § 3 a marginal number 198.auGoogle Scholar
  69. Heinrichs in Palandt, BGB, § 90 BGB marginal number 1. Google Scholar
  70. Stadie in Rau / Dürrwächter, UStG, § 3 a Rn. 120.Google Scholar
  71. This view is unlikely to agree with the case law of the ECJ, see ECJ of July 3rd, 1997, case C-60/96, ECJ 1997, p. I 3827 (Commission / France) .Google Scholar
  72. Paragraph 39 a (2) UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  73. Sec. 39 b para. 2 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  74. Section 39 c (1) sentence 1 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  75. Par. 39 c Para. 4–6 UStR 2008.Google Scholar
  76. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8,120 Google Scholar
  77. Sect. 39 b para. 2 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  78. OFD Karlsruhe, UVR 2000, p. 32. Google Scholar
  79. BFH of June 26th, 1996, XI R 18/94, BStBl. 1998 II, p. 278; Martin in Sölch / Ringleb, § 3 a margin no. 54. Google Scholar
  80. ECJ of October 6, 1982, case 283/81, ECJ 1982, p. 3415 (CILFIT). Google Scholar
  81. ECJ of July 4th, 1985, case 168/84, ECJ 1985, p. 2251; ECJ of May 2nd, 1996, case 231/94, ECJ 1996, p. I-2395 (Faaborg Gelting Linien); ECJ of July 17, 1997, case C-190/95, ECJ 1997, I-4383 (ARO Lease); ECJ of 07.05.1998, Case C-390 / 96EuGHE 1998, p. I-2553 (Lease Plan). Google Scholar
  82. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8.85 Google Scholar
  83. ECJ of 29.09.2005, case C-210/04, p. I-2803 (FCE Bank). Google Scholar
  84. BFH of April 2nd, 1997 - V B 159/96, BFH / NV 1997, p. 629. Google Scholar
  85. ECJ in the matter of Netto supermarket (ECJ of February 21, 2008, case C-271/06, HFR 2008, p. 408 = EU-UStB 2008, 20 f): Here the ECJ extended the protection of good faith to export deliveries after the taxpayer had done everything in his power to verify the veracity of the documents submitted.Google Scholar
  86. Stadium, sales tax law, margin no. 8.66 Google Scholar
  87. The Eighth Value Added Tax Directive (Eighth Directive 79/1072 / EEC of December 6, 1979 for the harmonization of the legal provisions of the member states on sales taxes - procedure for reimbursing VAT to taxpayers not resident in Germany, OJ EC No. L 331 of December 27, 1979, p . 11) obliges the member states to reimburse a taxpayer resident in the rest of the Community territory as input tax in a special procedure (Art. 3, 4) (Art. 2) .Google Scholar
  88. The 13th VAT Directive (Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560 / EEC of November 17, 1986 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States on sales taxes - procedure for the reimbursement of VAT to taxpayers not established in the territory of the Community, OJ EC No. L. 326 dated December 31, 1986, p. 40) regulates, in the interest of harmonious trade relations with third countries, the procedure for reimbursing VAT to taxpayers resident in third countries (so-called third country entrepreneurs) in an amendment to Art. 8 of the 8th VAT Directive. Google Scholar
  89. ECJ of June 9th, 2006, case C-114/05, ECJ 2006, p. I-2427 (Gillan Beach); ECJ of January 25, 2001, case C-427/97, ​​ECJ 2001, p. I-637 = UR 2001, p. 265 (Commission / France). Google Scholar
  90. Even if there is no legitimate expectation regulation within the meaning of Section 6 a (4) UStG for the assignment of the place of performance: In its decision in the Netto supermarket case (ECJ dated 02/21/2008, case C-271/06, HFR 2008, p. 408 = EU-UStB 2008, 20 f) the protection of legitimate expectations is recognized as a general principle in European VAT law. This should also apply to the use of VAT ID numbers.Google Scholar
  91. Section 42 d Paragraph 3 Sentence 2 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  92. Section 42 d Paragraph 3 Sentence 3 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  93. See Art. 52 letter b of the VAT Directive; until December 31, 2006: Article 9, Paragraph 2, Letter c, second indent of the 6th EC Directive.Google Scholar
  94. See Art. 53 of the VAT Directive; until December 31, 2006: Art. 28 b Part D of the 6th EC Directive.Google Scholar
  95. See Art. 50 Para. 1 of the VAT Directive; until December 31, 2006: Art. 28 b Part E Paragraph 1 Sub-Para. 1 of the 6th EC Directive.Google Scholar
  96. See Art. 50 Para. 2 of the VAT Directive; until December 31, 2006: Art. 28 b Part E Paragraph 1 Sub-Para. 2 of the 6th EC Directive.Google Scholar
  97. BFH of March 16, 1995, V R 128/92 BStBl. 1995 II, p.651.Google Scholar
  98. See section 32 (2) sentence 1 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  99. See section 32 para. 2 sentence 5 UStR 2008. Google Scholar
  100. ECJ of 29.09.2005, case C-210/04, p. I-2803 (FCE Bank). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2008