Case C‑144/14

Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

v

Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 273 and 287 — Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes — Whether veterinary services are taxable — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 9 July 2015

1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Veterinary care — Special exemption scheme — Exemption threshold exceeded and tax levied — No obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes

   (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 213(1), 214(1), 250(1), 273 and 287)

2. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Scope

3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Reclassification of an exempt veterinary services transaction as an activity subject to value added tax — Permissible in the light of the principle of legal certainty — No systematic application of that tax by the national authorities — Permissible in the light of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — To be determined by the national court

   (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 273 and 287)

4. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities

1.  The first paragraph of Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2009/162, does not require Member States to register of their own motion a taxable person for the purposes of collecting VAT solely on the basis of tax returns, other than those relating to VAT, where those returns would have made it possible to establish that the taxable person had exceeded the exemption threshold for VAT.

   Although Member States are required to check taxable persons’ returns, accounts and other relevant documents, and to calculate and collect the tax due, in the first place, under Article 213(1) of that directive, it is for the interested party to state when his activity as a taxable person commences, changes or ceases. Furthermore, Member States have a certain discretion when they adopt measures to ensure the identification of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT. In the second place, Member States are required to ensure compliance with the obligations to which taxable persons are subject, whilst enjoying in that respect a certain measure of latitude, inter alia, as to how they use the means at their disposal.

   It follows that Directive 2006/12 does not require Member States to adopt legislative and administrative measures which ensure that, in the management of tax returns other than those relating to VAT, the taxpayer’s compliance with the obligations relating to VAT has been checked at the same time, where those returns do not necessarily contain all the information which may be provided in a VAT return under Article 250(1) of Directive 2006/112 and which is necessary to establish that tax.

   (see paras 26, 28-31, operative part 1)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 34, 35)

3.  The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a national tax authority from deciding that veterinary services are subject to VAT, after a transaction has been removed from the list of transactions exempt from VAT, provided that that decision is based on clear rules and the practice of that authority was not such as to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that VAT would not be applied to those services, that being a matter for the referring court to establish.

   First, the mere fact that the tax authority reclassifies a given transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT during the limitation period cannot, in itself, undermine that legal principle.

   Secondly, with regard to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the fact that the national tax authorities did not systematically make veterinary services subject to VAT after the removal of the reference to veterinary care from the list of transactions exempt from VAT is not a priori sufficient, except in very exceptional circumstances, to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that VAT will not be applied to those services since VAT is of general application and veterinary services had been removed from the list of exempt transactions.

   (see paras 41, 46, 48, operative part 2)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 43, 44)

Case C‑144/14

Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

v

Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 273 and 287 — Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes — Whether veterinary services are taxable — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 9 July 2015

1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Veterinary care — Special exemption scheme — Exemption threshold exceeded and tax levied — No obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes

   (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 213(1), 214(1), 250(1), 273 and 287)

2. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Scope

3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services — Reclassification of an exempt veterinary services transaction as an activity subject to value added tax — Permissible in the light of the principle of legal certainty — No systematic application of that tax by the national authorities — Permissible in the light of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — To be determined by the national court

   (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 273 and 287)

4. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities

1.  The first paragraph of Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Directive 2009/162, does not require Member States to register of their own motion a taxable person for the purposes of collecting VAT solely on the basis of tax returns, other than those relating to VAT, where those returns would have made it possible to establish that the taxable person had exceeded the exemption threshold for VAT.

   Although Member States are required to check taxable persons’ returns, accounts and other relevant documents, and to calculate and collect the tax due, in the first place, under Article 213(1) of that directive, it is for the interested party to state when his activity as a taxable person commences, changes or ceases. Furthermore, Member States have a certain discretion when they adopt measures to ensure the identification of taxable persons for the purposes of VAT. In the second place, Member States are required to ensure compliance with the obligations to which taxable persons are subject, whilst enjoying in that respect a certain measure of latitude, inter alia, as to how they use the means at their disposal.

   It follows that Directive 2006/12 does not require Member States to adopt legislative and administrative measures which ensure that, in the management of tax returns other than those relating to VAT, the taxpayer’s compliance with the obligations relating to VAT has been checked at the same time, where those returns do not necessarily contain all the information which may be provided in a VAT return under Article 250(1) of Directive 2006/112 and which is necessary to establish that tax.

   (see paras 26, 28-31, operative part 1)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 34, 35)

3.  The principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a national tax authority from deciding that veterinary services are subject to VAT, after a transaction has been removed from the list of transactions exempt from VAT, provided that that decision is based on clear rules and the practice of that authority was not such as to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that VAT would not be applied to those services, that being a matter for the referring court to establish.

   First, the mere fact that the tax authority reclassifies a given transaction as an economic activity subject to VAT during the limitation period cannot, in itself, undermine that legal principle.

   Secondly, with regard to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the fact that the national tax authorities did not systematically make veterinary services subject to VAT after the removal of the reference to veterinary care from the list of transactions exempt from VAT is not a priori sufficient, except in very exceptional circumstances, to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that VAT will not be applied to those services since VAT is of general application and veterinary services had been removed from the list of exempt transactions.

   (see paras 41, 46, 48, operative part 2)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 43, 44)