KPMG Germany Webpage Click on the above link to visit the KPMG Germany webpage on the Mondaq website For disclaimer and copyright see end of this article.
In a decision dated 16 October 1997 (Fillibeck KG - IStR 1997, 658) the European Court of Justice has held that transportation between home and place of work provided by an employer to his employees does not constitute a service rendered by the employer for consideration where the transportation is provided on an optional basis and the same wages are paid whether an employee takes advantage of the free transportation or not.
Under this condition, the transportation would not be taxable under sec. 1 (1) no. 1 UStG.
The ECJ further held that transportation between home and place of work provided by an employer to his employees is as a rule provided in satisfaction of the personal needs of the employees, hence is provided for purposes outside of the scope of the employer's enterprise. However, the court went on to state that the transportation of employees is motivated by a business purpose where exceptional circumstances compel (gebieten) the employer to provide transportation. The court appeared to say that this was the case when "other suitable means of transportation" were not reasonably available. A lack of accessibility of public transportation may be a case in point. The fact that employees change work sites frequently can also compel the employer to provide transportation.
The specific case involved a construction company. The court implied that the circumstances of the construction business would frequently compel construction companies to provide transportation for their employees.
If the transportation service is provided for the private needs of the employees, it is taxable under sec. 1 (1) no. 2 (b) UStG. If the service is compelled by special business circumstances within the meaning of the ECJ's judgement, then it would escape VAT taxation.
This article treats the subjects covered in condensed form. It is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be relied on as a basis for business decisions. Specialist advice must be sought with respect to your individual circumstances. We in particular insist that the tax law and other sources on which the article is based be consulted in the original, whether or not such sources are named in the article. Please note as well that later versions of this article or other articles on related topics may have since appeared on this database or elsewhere and should also be searched for and consulted. While our articles are carefully reviewed, we can accept no responsibility in the event of any inaccuracy or omission. Please note the date of each article and that subsequent related developments are not necessarily reported on in later articles. Any claims nevertheless raised on the basis of this article are subject to German substantive law and, to the extent permissible thereunder, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. This article is the intellectual property of KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG (KPMG Germany). Distribution to third persons is prohibited without our express written consent in advance.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The New Turkish Commercial Code ("New Code") has been enacted and will enter into force in July 2012. One of the major changes brought by the New Code regards mandatory independent audits of corporations.
The law about payment of dividends has remained substantially unchanged for thirty years.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).