Court Ruling on VAT Classification for Joint Activity Agreements

Summary

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania ruled on the classification of taxable persons for VAT purposes in joint activity agreements. In line with the European Court of Justice's interpretation, the SAC determined that the individual carrying out activities on behalf of a partnership, assuming economic risks and acting independently, should be considered the taxable person. This case clarifies how VAT liability applies in such business structures under EU law.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the person acting independently and assuming economic risks in a joint activity agreement is the taxable person for VAT purposes.
The European Court of Justice's clarification highlights that entities without legal personality can still be considered taxable persons under the VAT Directive.
The SAC emphasized the importance of determining who carries out the economic activity for their own benefit and responsibility to identify the liable party for VAT.

🎧 Prefer to Listen?

Get the audio version of this article and stay informed without reading - perfect for multitasking or learning on the go.

The SAC ruled on the classification of supplies for VAT purposes where several natural persons had entered into a joint activity agreement. the ECJ clarified that Article 9(1) and Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who who has signed a joint venture agreement with another natural person, forming a partnership without legal personality, characterised by the fact that the first person has the right to act on behalf of all partners, but who alone and in his own name enters into relations with third parties when carrying out activities constituting the economic activity of that partnership, must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the VAT Directive and the only person liable for payment of the VAT due under Article 193 of that directive, since he acts on his own behalf or on behalf of another person as a commission agent within the meaning of Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive.

In the case before the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, in which the aforementioned ECJ clarification was submitted, emphasized that, according to the established case law of the ECJ, the words used in Article 9 of the VAT Directive, in particular "any," give the concept of "taxable person" a broad meaning based on independent economic activity, i.e., all natural and legal persons, whether public or private, and even entities without legal personality, which objectively meet the criteria laid down in that provision, are to be regarded as taxable persons for VAT purposes.

However, in the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, in order to determine who, in circumstances such as those in the case at hand, should be considered a "taxable person" for the disputed supplies, it is necessary to verify who carried out the relevant economic activity "independently." To this end, it is necessary to verify whether the person concerned carries out the activity in their own name, for their own benefit and on their own responsibility, and whether they themselves bear the economic risk associated with their activity.

Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania found that in the case under consideration, the tax administrator, the Tax Disputes Commission, and the court of first instance had rightly concluded that it was the applicant, and not the other participants in the joint activity agreement, who should be recognized as a taxable person for VAT purposes. After examining the facts, it was reasonably concluded that it was the applicant who carried out the activities in his own name, for his own benefit and on his own responsibility, and that he himself assumed the economic risk associated with his activities. This conclusion was correctly reached after assessing both the terms of the joint venture agreement and the circumstances confirming its implementation.