In its judgment of 25.07.2018 (C-05/17) the ECJ decided that a service provider does not provide VAT-exempt payment and transfer transactions by the mere act of direct debiting and forwarding of money. This case is yet another ECJ ruling which finds that outsourced financial service supplies are subject to VAT. Cost advantages are nullified by VAT liability in this area for certain sectors like banks, insurance companies and doctors.

The Fiscal Court in Hesse dealt with the issue of absorption of employee relocation expenses by employers in a judgement published in July 2018 (6 K 2033/15 of 22.02.2018). In the particular case, the Court held that the employer’s business interest in the move took priority. Thus, there is no free of charge supply here. Consequently, the absorption of relocation expenses by an employer can justify a claim for the company’s input VAT deduction. The Court considered the assumption of an exchange-like transaction as unrealistic

In the Enteco Baltic case, the ECJ once again examined the significance of VAT-ID-Nos. for the application of a VAT exemption. On this occasion, it concerned the exemption from import VAT in case of a subsequent intra-Community supply (so-called “procedure 42”). In consistent continuation of its previous case law, the ECJ ruled that the disclosure of the purchaser's VAT-ID-No. is merely a formal requirement and not a substantive prerequisite for exemption from import VAT. In addition, the judgment contains statements on good faith and evidential value of documents issued in the excise tax suspension procedure.