To date, it has not been possible to ascribe the transport in a chain transaction in a legally watertight way Hence, the ECJ`s decision in the case Kreuzmayr (C-628/16) has been eagerly awaited. In its decision, the ECJ confirmed that the purchaser’s subjective knowledge (provided that it is supported by objective evidence) must be taken into account but not only that of the supplier. Any stated intention made by an intermediary operator as regards a further sale is therefore irrelevant, even if it could have been assumed following the ECJ decision in the case Toridas (C-68/16). Further, the ECJ denies protection of legitimate expectations where a chain transaction was wrongly evaluated.

Many banks outsource single tasks to external providers. Banks are only partly entitled to deduct input VAT. Therefore, banks are interested in the fact that the outsourced services are VAT exempt. The ECJ has already decided that, when purchasing cinema tickets, the processing of debit or credit card payments is not VAT exempt. Now, the German Federal Fiscal Court would like to know if this also applies to the operation of ATMs.

Whether legal remedies lodged in VAT related proceedings are successful not only depends on substantive law, procedural law can also be of decisive importance. For example: Appeal against assessment of interest ++ Sufficient determination of the claim ++ Liability of the managing director in the case of insolvency ++ Burden of proof re the place of supply ++ Amended tax assessment issued between the pronouncement of judgment and notification of judgement.