Consignment stocks: Direct delivery only with binding purchase agreement

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Consignment stocks: Direct delivery only with binding purchase agreement

Ronny Langer KMLZ

The German Federal Fiscal Court has published a decision regarding the VAT treatment of supplies via consignment stocks (VR 1/16). Ronny Langer, partner at Küffner Maunz Langer Zugmaier, explains what this case could mean for other cross-border transactions.

The court denied a direct delivery resulting in an intra-community supply because there was no binding purchase contract in place at the beginning of the transport of the stock.

Case background

A Dutch BV delivered screens to a German customer. The screens were brought to a call-off stock on the customer’s site. The BV remained the owner of the consignment stock until such time as the BV’s customer transmitted its weekly list of the consignment stock sold in the previous week. The purchase price charged by the BV was only set on the day on which the customer resold the consignment stock. The BV was obliged to leave the consignment stock in the warehouse for at least three weeks. After this period, the customer was entitled to return the whole stock or part thereof to the BV.

Court’s rational

Since there are no special regulations for consignment stocks in Germany, the Federal Fiscal Court decided the case using the general VAT principles. Therefore, the court considered whether section 3, paragraph 6 of the German VAT Act could be applied and if the place of delivery was consequently in the Netherlands, from where the goods were transported to the warehouse. Since section 3, paragraph 6 of the German VAT Act requires shipment to the customer, it must be clear who the customer is at the beginning of the shipment. The German Federal Fiscal Court decided that, at the beginning of the shipment, a binding purchase contract is therefore crucial.   


However, according to the agreement between the parties in the case, the customer was not obliged to buy the goods brought to the warehouse. Moreover, the customer was not obliged to make a payment until the goods were taken out of stock. According to the German Federal Fiscal Court, a binding purchase contract was not concluded until after the storage period (or, to be more precise, when the goods were removed from the warehouse). The place of delivery was, therefore, in Germany and not in the Netherlands, as it would have been in the case of a direct delivery.

Apparently, the German Federal Fiscal Court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the goods were in the books of the supplier and not the customer until their removal from the stock.


This is surprising because entering the goods in the balance sheet is only a result of the person being the beneficial owner. It is not an indication of the VAT treatment, even if the right to dispose of the goods and the economic ownership have certain similarities.


All in all, the questions of how binding a purchase contract needs to be and which conditions need to be fulfilled remain open. German civil law cannot be relevant because cross-border transactions are to be assessed, which means that eventually, the civil law of the ship-from country also needs to be considered. This might differ from German civil law.



Ronny Langer KMLZ

Ronny Langer

Partner and certified tax consultant

Küffner Maunz Langer Zugmaier

T +44 89 217501250

E: ronny.langer@kmlz.de

W: www.kmlz.de

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article