In February the Supreme Court handed down to rulings concerning the location of certain deliveries of goods that to some extent modify the criteria maintained in the resolution of the Rover case. In the first ruling, dated 3 February 2016, the court follows the argument presented previously by the Court of Arbitration of the Economic Agreement of Navarre and rules the transfer of gas ownership is understood to have taken place at the time when the gas enters the facilities of the purchaser. It is therefore considered that in training activities goods are made available in the place where the meter is located. In the second ruling, dated nine February, the Supreme Court also confirms the criterion maintained by the Court of Arbitration of the Economic Agreement and rules that the actual tank is the point of delivery of the fuel traded, from where is then made available to purchasers, so the operation is understood to be located at that point for the purpose of VAT.
In the wake of these two sentences, issue number 216 of the Forum Fiscal journal contains an article by Gorka Garitaonandia (“Cambio jurisprudencial en la doctrina del Tribunal Supremo en relación con la sentencia “Rover”. Régimen del depósito distinto del aduanero en el 2016″ – “Change in jurisprudence in the doctrine of the Supreme Court in regard to the “Rover”rolling. Deposit system other than customs deposit in 2016“) that analyses the development over time of the criteria for a location used by the Supreme Court from the Rover ruling to these recent rulings. In the same issue of the journal Iñaki Alonso Arce examines the ruling of 9 February in his article “Las entregas de productos energéticos por comercializadores y la sentencia Rover: una nueva perspectiva tras la sentencia Disa” [“Deliveries of energy products by traders and the Rover ruling: a new perspective following the Disa ruling“].
Finally, in its ruling of 9 February the Supreme Court rules as unlawful the regulation contained in Royal Decree 1073/2000 1419 December establishing the possibility of opting to include VAT quotas on imports at the time when the self-settlement return is submitted, by contrast with the previous system under which VAT on imports had to be paid in to the tax authorities at customs and tax payers had to wait until the self-assessment for the period to recover it by offsetting or refund. The Supreme Court understands that there is discrimination against taxpayers who pay their taxes exclusively to the provincial treasuries, as they are excluded from the new system. Aitor Orena looks in depth at the arguments underlying the ruling in his article “Discriminación en el IVA a la importación” [“Discrimination in VAT on imports“] in the same issue of Forum Fiscal.
