In its judgment T-638/24, the General Court confirms that safety net acquisition VAT is due if the acquirer uses a VAT-ID from another Member State vis-à-vis the supplier – even if this number originates from the Member State of departure. In the opinion of the court, the parallel application of Art. 41 and Art. 203 of the EU VAT Directive does not lead to double taxation in violation of EU law – contrary to the ruling of the ECJ in case C-696/20, where the intra-Community supply was not considered to be VAT-exempt. Whether safety net acquisition VAT arises therefore always depends on whether the underlying intra-Community supply is VAT-exempt or not.

In a judgment dated 20 February 2026, the US Supreme Court declared large parts of the customs tariffs introduced by President Trump during his second term to be unlawful. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not provide any legal basis for such regulations. The White House has already announced that it will reintroduce customs tariffs on other legal grounds. Companies that have paid customs duties in the US in the past can still expect refunds.

In the case Credidam, the European General Court delivered a landmark judgment on damages. It held that damages may be subject to VAT even where there is no contractual relationship, or where the payment is owed by law. This calls into question the tax authorities’ previous (generous) distinction between “genuine” and “non-genuine” damages.