Judgment of the Court of Justice in the case De Fruytier.
Neither Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive nor Article 13(A)(1)(c) thereof, can be interpreted as applying to the transportation, for clinics and laboratories, of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system. In particular, such an activity does not qualify for an exemption from value added tax as an activity closely related to services of a medical nature as provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b), since that self-employed third party cannot be characterised as a ‘body governed by public law' or fall within the definition of a ‘hospital', a ‘centre for medical treatment' or a centre for ‘diagnosis' or any ‘other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature', operating under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law. 

Informatiesoort: Nieuws

Rubriek: Europees belastingrecht, Omzetbelasting

H&I: Previews


Gerelateerde artikelen