000			01763nab a2200277 c 4500
999			_c143580 _d143580
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20210212125529.0
007			ta
008			210211t2020 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_963589 _aCornielje, Simon
245		4	_aThe unsettled business of the fixed establishment in EU VAT _c Simon Cornielje & Peter Slegtenhorst
260			_c2020
500			_aDisponible también en formato electrónico.
500			_aResumen.
520			_aEver since the change in the place of supply rules in the EU VAT Directive in 2010, the outline of the concept of the fixed establishment in EU Value Added Tax (‘EU VAT’) has been unclear and cause for confusion. The recent Dong Yang-case, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that a subsidiary may well qualify as a fixed establishment for VAT purposes, can be seen to propel this conceptual obscurity to new heights. Based on an analysis of the CJEU’s judgment in the Dong Yang-case in light of the Council Implementing Regulation and previous judgments, the authors substantiate in what way the fixed establishment lacks conceptual clarity and thus gives rise to consequences that are directly contrary to its purpose: to prevent jurisdictional disputes between Member States.
650		4	_aSOCIEDADES _945680
650		4	_aSUCURSALES _944380
650		4	_aESTABLECIMIENTO PERMANENTE _942622
650		4	_aIMPUESTO SOBRE EL VALOR AÑADIDO _950141
650			_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
650			_aJURISPRUDENCIA _947570
700	1		_968743 _aSlegtenhorst, Peter
773	0		_9164288 _oOP 2141-B/2020/6 _tEC Tax Review _w(IEF)124968 _x 0928-2750 [print] _gv. 29, Issue 6, December 2020, p. 285-294
942			_cART