VAT quick fixes and potential double taxation

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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


VAT quick fixes and potential double taxation

Sponsored by

Spanish VAT Services logo.jpg
Quick fixes are intended to address several practical problems

Fernando Matesanz of Spanish VAT Services explains why a practical solution is needed for intra-community transactions within the EU.

Since January 1 2020, following the entry into force of Directive 2018/1910, the so-called ‘quick fixes’ for VAT have been implemented at an EU level to harmonise and simplify certain aspects of intra-community trade of goods. 

The quick fixes are intended to address several practical problems affecting the following intra-community operations: call-off stock arrangements, chain transactions, the obligation to count on a VAT ID number to be able to exempt intra-community supplies of goods and the documental proof of transport of intra-community movements of goods. 

The reason why they are known as quick fixes is because they are interim measures until the definitive system of taxation at destination comes into force, which at present seems difficult, however, this is an idea that is by no means abandoned.

Unfortunately, these solutions are far from perfect and pose a number of problems in their implementation that jeopardise the real aim, which is the harmonisation and simplification of the EU VAT treatment of the above-mentioned intra-community transactions.

One of these problems may create situations of double taxation and irrecoverable VAT which must always be avoided if the principle of VAT neutrality is to be preserved. We are referring to the quick fix related to the VAT ID number on intra-community supplies of goods and the interactions between Article 138 of the VAT Directive, Article 16 of the VAT implementing Regulation 282/2011 and Article 4 of the Directive 2008/9, on VAT refunds for not established taxable persons. 

According to the wording of Article 138 of the VAT Directive in force since January 2020, in case the recipient of goods in an intra-community supply of goods does not count on a VAT identification number allocated by the tax administration of a member state other than the state of shipment of the goods, the supplier may legitimately charge VAT on the supply as the requirements for the exemption to apply are not fulfilled. 

At the same time, in Article 16 of the VAT Implementing Regulation member states exercise their power of taxation of intra-community acquisitions of goods “irrespective of the VAT treatment applied to the transaction in the Member State in which the dispatch or transport began”.

On a literal interpretation of these two VAT provisions, the controversy is open as it is possible for the supplier to charge VAT to his customer in the member state of dispatch of the goods and at the same time the latter can be taxed on the purchase in the country or arrival of said goods. 

As the current common system of VAT is designed, situations like the above should be avoided. However, with the addition of the mandatory VAT number requirement for intra-community supplies of goods, this situation could occur in practice. 

The situation can become more problematic for taxable persons as obtaining a refund of the VAT that has been charged to them can be a complicated task. In this respect, Article 4 of the VAT Directive on refunds for not established entrepreneurs expressly excludes cases where VAT has been charged as part of an intra-community supply.

If, according to the above, no refund is possible following the Directive procedure, the VAT charged by the supplier should be recovered by issuing corrective invoices once the recipient has a VAT number in place.

The conditions for issuing corrective invoices are far from being uniform among member states, subject to different requirements in terms of format, content and especially, timing. This disparity of criteria will make difficult in some cases to obtain the refund of the VAT charged. 

Those taxable persons facing this type of situation will, therefore, find themselves in a kind of legal limbo in which they have been taxed in the member state of dispatch of the goods, they have also been taxed in the member state of arrival and, in addition, they may encounter enormous difficulties in obtaining a refund of the VAT charged.

The above is not a hypothetical problem. By strictly applying the current EU VAT legal provisions, it is something that could occur with some frequency and some action to mitigate this would be needed.

Having a VAT number when doing intra-community transactions is important but there are many situations where a taxable person may not have one at the time of a particular transaction occurs and given the slow allocation processes in some member states, it may take a considerable time to obtain it. A practical solution should therefore be provided. 

Reviewing Article 4 of Directive 2008/9, which precisely regulates the cases in which the Directive does not apply, could be a good place to start. 

 

 

Fernando Matesanz

Managing director, Spanish VAT Services

E: fmc@spanishvat.es

 

 

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

It was also a memorable night for Galicia, KPMG, Skadden and Pinheiro Neto, all of which scooped major awards at a gala ceremony in New York
The former Deloitte UK CEO earned a 45% raise in a year when 1,000 staff reportedly lost their jobs – and the pay gap is only getting bigger
In a seminal development for big law, the 95-year-old firm is set to cease operations after a series of high-profile partner departures
UK Chancellor John Healey extended a VAT cut, suspended tariffs, increased a bank surcharge and vowed to increase funding for HMRC
Kristine Riisberg warned that TP decisions can determine top-up tax exposure under pillar two, while global consensus over the rules remains unsettled
Both Germany’s NIS2 and the EU AI Act now determine whether a tax function can meet its obligations – and both can make management personally accountable
Originators, loan purchasers and securitisation vehicles may need to revisit servicing agreements and pricing after a key judgment narrowed the VAT credit management exemption
Opening doors for existing talent within Baker McKenzie and a desire for enhanced legal capabilities informed Ricardo Perera’s switch from KPMG
Boaz Goren’s move to the upstart PE-backed firm takes the number of senior UK tax professionals who have left EY this year to 13
The allegations against Deloitte Cyprus raise uncomfortable questions about how far the big four can distance themselves from misconduct at member firms
Gift this article