Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 91996E001977

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1977/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribers

Úř. věst. C 365, 4.12.1996, p. 58 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT)

European Parliament's website

91996E1977

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1977/96 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribers

Official Journal C 365 , 04/12/1996 P. 0058


WRITTEN QUESTION P-1977/96 by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission (12 July 1996)

Subject: Double VAT for Swedish mobile telephone subscribers

According to 'Dagens Nyheter' of 1 July 1996, Swedish mobile telephone subscribers are being charged double VAT as many EU Member States are failing to comply with the relevant directive in respect of the repayment of VAT to Telia, the Swedish national telephone company. Telia is therefore deducting both foreign VAT on mobile telephone services and Swedish VAT calculated on the entire amount, the call charges plus the foreign VAT.

Does the Commission regard this double charging by Telia as compatible with EU rules? What steps does the Commission intend to take to persuade all Member States to comply with the directives in force so that Swedish mobile telephone subscribers no longer have to pay double VAT on calls made abroad?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (17 September 1996)

The common VAT system does not give rise to double taxation within the Community. This is avoided either by deduction or by refund in accordance with the 8th Directive on arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (79/1072/EEC). ((OJ L 331, 27.12.1979. ))

Since the system was introduced, the Commission has taken particular care to ensure that refund procedures abide by the six-month deadline laid down in the Directive and do not unduly put up firms' costs. It has on several occasions started infringement procedures when deadlines were systematically missed, and this led to such practices being censured. (See cases C-287/91 and C-16/95). The Commission therefore wishes to encourage the plaintiffs to send it any details that might be useful in examining any infringements.

The Commission wishes to stress, however, that this problem no longer arises under the new VAT arrangements, which are based on the principle of taxation at origin. Under this system, the tax is deducted by the person liable who sets it off against the amount of the tax payable, independently of where the deductible tax was paid. Any specific refund procedure falling within the 8th VAT Directive is therefore null and void.

Top