beginselen:neutraliteit
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| beginselen:neutraliteit [2021/08/06 15:50] – avdoesum | beginselen:neutraliteit [2026/06/23 10:01] (current) – avdoesum | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| - [[beginselen: | - [[beginselen: | ||
| - [[beginselen: | - [[beginselen: | ||
| + | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
| ===1.2 | ===1.2 | ||
| + | |||
| * [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
| * [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
| * [[https:// | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| ===1.3 | ===1.3 | ||
| - | [[https:// | + | ==1.3.1 Deutsche Bank== |
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| **45.** Lastly, it must be stated that that conclusion is not called into question by the principle of fiscal neutrality. As the Advocate General stated at point 60 of her Opinion, that principle cannot extend the scope of an exemption in the absence of clear wording to that effect. That principle is not a rule of primary law which can condition the validity of an exemption, but a principle of interpretation, | **45.** Lastly, it must be stated that that conclusion is not called into question by the principle of fiscal neutrality. As the Advocate General stated at point 60 of her Opinion, that principle cannot extend the scope of an exemption in the absence of clear wording to that effect. That principle is not a rule of primary law which can condition the validity of an exemption, but a principle of interpretation, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==1.3.2 Commissie / Frankrijk (e-books)== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | ==1.3.3== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | **33.** Wat ten tweede meer specifiek de doelstellingen van de winstmargeregeling betreft, heeft het Hof inderdaad reeds benadrukt dat deze regeling volgens overweging 51 van de btw-richtlijn erop gericht is dubbele heffing van de belasting en verstoring van de mededinging tussen belastingplichtigen te voorkomen, op het gebied van gebruikte goederen, kunstvoorwerpen, | ||
| + | |||
| + | **34.** Niettemin zij eraan herinnerd dat volgens vaste rechtspraak van het Hof de uitlegging van een bepaling van het Unierecht tegen de achtergrond van de context en het doel ervan er niet toe kan leiden dat aan de ondubbelzinnige en precieze bewoordingen van deze bepaling elk nuttig effect wordt ontnomen. Wanneer de betekenis van een bepaling van Unierecht ondubbelzinnig uit de bewoordingen ervan blijkt, mag het Hof dus niet van deze uitlegging afwijken (zie in die zin arresten van 26 oktober 2006, Europese Gemeenschap, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===1.4 Externe neutraliteit=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mariken van Hilten, 10 september 2021 - Ben Terra Conference | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Destination principle | ||
| + | * No difference between local goods/ | ||
| + | * Grens is een ' | ||
| + | * But what if there is no border | ||
| + | * Risk of Fraud | ||
| + | * Case R, C-285/09 preludes Italmoda, C-131/13 | ||
| + | * Webmindlicences, | ||
| + | * Denying deduction / exemption: sanction? --> No only consequence if not meeting requirements | ||
| + | * When determining whether deduction / exemption is to be denied, it seems of the essence whether there is a loss of VAT revenue: Collee, C-146/05 en Unitel, C-653/18 --> only fraud that results in loss of EU VAT leads to refusal zero rate | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===1.5 Geen beroep op neutraliteitsbeginsel mogelijk in geval van fraude=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===1.6 Niet-aftrekbare btw leidt niet noodzakelijkerwijs tot hogere prijzen=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| - | [[https:// | ||
| - | **43** De werkingssfeer van een verlaagd btw-tarief kan bij gebreke van een duidelijke bepaling immers niet op grond van het beginsel van fiscale neutraliteit worden uitgebreid (zie in die zin arrest Zimmermann, C‑174/11, EU: | ||
| ====2. Regelgeving==== | ====2. Regelgeving==== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 84: | ||
| ====3. Jurisprudentie==== | ====3. Jurisprudentie==== | ||
| - | [[https:// | + | * [[https:// |
| “dit beginsel houdt (…) in, dat alle economische activiteiten gelijk moeten worden behandeld (…)’. | “dit beginsel houdt (…) in, dat alle economische activiteiten gelijk moeten worden behandeld (…)’. | ||
| - | [[https:// | + | * [[https:// |
| **37** It is clear from the same case-law that barter contracts, under which the consideration is by definition in kind, and transactions for which the consideration is in money are, **economically and commercially speaking**, two identical situations (judgment of 26 September 2013, Serebryannay vek, C‑283/12, EU: | **37** It is clear from the same case-law that barter contracts, under which the consideration is by definition in kind, and transactions for which the consideration is in money are, **economically and commercially speaking**, two identical situations (judgment of 26 September 2013, Serebryannay vek, C‑283/12, EU: | ||
| - | [[https:// | + | * [[https:// |
| **47** In that regard, it suffices to observe that, in those circumstances, | **47** In that regard, it suffices to observe that, in those circumstances, | ||
| + | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
beginselen/neutraliteit.1628257859.txt.gz · Last modified: by avdoesum