III. CASE- LAW
III. 1. Court of Justice of the European Union
Judgement of the Court of 17 May 2018, Case C‑640/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. Internal taxation. Prohibition of discriminatory taxation. Article 110 TFEU. Annual road tax for motor vehicles. Setting of tax rate according to the date of first registration of the vehicle in the taxing Member State. Second-hand motor vehicles imported into other Member States. No account taken of the date of first registration in another Member State.
Summary: “Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the annual road tax established by that legislation is levied on light passenger motor vehicles registered or listed in that Member State without taking into account the date of first registration of the vehicle where registration took place in another Member State, which results in higher taxation of vehicles imported from another Member State compared to similar non-imported vehicles.”
Judgment of the Court of 31 May 2018, Case C‑382/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling. Freedom of establishment. Corporation tax. Legislation of a Member State. Calculation of the taxable revenue of companies. Advantage granted gratuitously by a resident company to a non-resident company to which is it linked by a relationship of interdependence. Correction of the taxable income of the resident company. No correction of taxable income in the event of an identical advantage granted by a resident company to another resident company to which it is linked by such a relationship. Restriction on the freedom of establishment. Justification.
Summary: “Article 43 EC (now Article 49 TFEU), in conjunction with Article 48 EC (now Article 54 TFEU), must be interpreted as, in principle, not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the income of a company resident in a Member State which granted to a company established in another Member State with which it has a relationship of interdependence advantages under terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances, must be calculated as it would have been if the terms which would have been agreed with unrelated third parties had been applicable, and be corrected, despite the fact that such a correction is not made in respect of taxable income when the same advantages are granted by a resident company to another resident company with which it has a relationship of interdependence. However, it is for the national court to determine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings affords the resident taxpayer the opportunity to prove that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the non-resident company.”
Judgment of the Court of 27 June, Cases C‑459/17 and C‑460/17: References for a preliminary ruling. Common system of value added tax (VAT). Right to deduct input tax. Material conditions governing the right to deduct. Actual delivery of the goods.
Summary:“Article 17 of the 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 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to deny a taxable person in receipt of an invoice the right to deduct the VAT appearing on that invoice, it is sufficient that the authorities establish that the transactions covered by that invoice have not actually been carried out.”
III. 2. Constitutional Court
Judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 242/2018 of June 07: Declares the unconstitutionality with General binding force the norm of article 7, paragraph 3, Law No. 34/2004 of July 29, in wording given by Law No. 47/2007, August 28, in part in refusing legal protection the legal persons for profit, as of the fulfilment of their economic situation, for violation of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic.
III. 3. Courts of Justice
Judgment of the Court of appeal of Porto of May 9, case No. 210/10.2 IDAVR. P1: Crime of tax fraud. Co-authoring. Objective punishable condition.
Judgment of the Court of appeal of Evora, of May 10, case No. 312/T8STR 18.7. E1: Special Process of Revitalization. Term.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Guimarães, June 07, Case No. 30472/16.5YIPRT.G: contract for the carriage of goods. Charter contract.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Guimarães, June 07, Case No. 70/17.2T8EPS.G: Trade company. Removal of administrator. Justified reasons. Compensation.
III. 4. Administrative and Tax Courts
Judgment of the Central Administrative Court North of May 10, Case No. 02861/16.2BEPRT: Evidences of wealth. Resident abroad. Error of judgment of the facts and of law. Burden of proof.
Judgment of the Central Administrative Court North of May 10, Case No. 00738/13.2BECBR: In fact Management vs in law Management. Power of Attorney.
Judgment of the Central Administrative Court South of June 07, Case No. 1367/10.8BESNT: Holding company. Capital losses with the sale of shareholdings.
Share this article