This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CA0210
Joined Cases C-210/11 and C-211/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) — Right to deduction — Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use — No rent payable in money, but taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes)
Joined Cases C-210/11 and C-211/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) — Right to deduction — Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use — No rent payable in money, but taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes)
Joined Cases C-210/11 and C-211/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11) (Requests for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) — Right to deduction — Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use — No rent payable in money, but taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes)
OJ C 260, 7.9.2013, p. 4–5
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.9.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 260/4 |
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — État belge v Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11)
(Joined Cases C-210/11 and C-211/11) (1)
(Requests for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) - Right to deduction - Capital goods belonging to legal persons made partly available to their managers for private use - No rent payable in money, but taking into account of a benefit in kind for income tax purposes)
2013/C 260/06
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Cour de cassation
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: État belge
Defendants: Medicom SPRL (C-210/11), Maison Patrice Alard SPRL (C-211/11)
Re:
Requests for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 6(2), first paragraph, point (a) and Article 13(B)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1) — VAT exemption — Concept of supply of services in relation to immovable property — Use of part of immovable property forming part of the assets of the business for the private use of managers and their families, without there being any rent to be paid in money, but constituting a benefit in kind — No right to deduction
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding the making available of part of immovable property belonging to a legal person to its manager for his private use, without there being provision for the beneficiaries of that arrangement to pay a rent in money by way of consideration for the use of that property, from constituting an exempted letting of immovable property within the meaning of that directive; the fact that the making available of that property is deemed, under the relevant national income tax legislation, to be a benefit in kind stemming from the beneficiaries’ performance of their corporate duties or under their contract of employment is of no import in that regard; |
|
2. |
Point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 6(2) and Article 13(B)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, must be interpreted as meaning that, in situations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the issue whether or not the making available of all or part of the property in its entirety forming part of the assets of the business to managers, administrators or members of that business is directly linked to the operation of the business is of no relevance for the determination of whether that making available comes within the exemption provided for in the latter provision. |