So ... do I understand correct: it's not about VAT on the Bitcoin-Purchase (1000€ + 200€ VAT) but about VAT on the fee (10€ + 2€)? If this is it, it seems not a subjects of legal discussion that everyone who earns money with a service has to pay VAT on his income.

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 2 June 2014 — Skatteverket v David Hedqvist

(Case C-264/14)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: David Hedqvist

Questions referred

Is Article 2(1) of the VAT Directive 1 to be interpreted as meaning that transactions in the form of what has been designated as the exchange of virtual currency for traditional currency and vice versa, which is effected for consideration added by the supplier when the exchange rates are determined, constitute the supply of a service effected for consideration?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 135(1) to be interpreted as meaning that the abovementioned exchange transactions are tax exempt?

Article 2
1.   The following transactions shall be subject to VAT:
(a)
the supply of goods for consideration within the territory of a Member State by a taxable person acting as such;
(b)
the intra-Community acquisition of goods for consideration within the territory of a Member State by:
(i)
a taxable person acting as such, or a non-taxable legal person, where the vendor is a taxable person acting as such who is not eligible for the exemption for small enterprises provided for in Articles 282 to 292 and who is not covered by Articles 33 or 36;
(ii)
in the case of new means of transport, a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person, whose other acquisitions are not subject to VAT pursuant to Article 3(1), or any other non-taxable person;
(iii)
in the case of products subject to excise duty, where the excise duty on the intra-Community acquisition is chargeable, pursuant to Directive 92/12/EEC, within the territory of the Member State, a taxable person, or a non-taxable legal person, whose other acquisitions are not subject to VAT pursuant to Article 3(1);
(c)
the supply of services for consideration within the territory of a Member State by a taxable person acting as such;
(d)
the importation of goods.

Article 135
1.   Member States shall exempt the following transactions:
(a)
insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents;
(b)
the granting and the negotiation of credit and the management of credit by the person granting it;
(c)
the negotiation of or any dealings in credit guarantees or any other security for money and the management of credit guarantees by the person who is granting the credit;
(d)
transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments, but excluding debt collection;
(e)
transactions, including negotiation, concerning currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender, with the exception of collectors' items, that is to say, gold, silver or other metal coins or bank notes which are not normally used as legal tender or coins of numismatic interest;
(f)
transactions, including negotiation but not management or safekeeping, in shares, interests in companies or associations, debentures and other securities, but excluding documents establishing title to goods, and the rights or securities referred to in Article 15(2);
(g)
the management of special investment funds as defined by Member States;
(h)
the supply at face value of postage stamps valid for use for postal services within their respective territory, fiscal stamps and other similar stamps;
(i)
betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling, subject to the conditions and limitations laid down by each Member State;
(j)
the supply of a building or parts thereof, and of the land on which it stands, other than the supply referred to in point (a) of Article 12(1);
(k)
the supply of land which has not been built on other than the supply of building land as referred to in point (b) of Article 12(1);
(l)
the leasing or letting of immovable property.

I have a client who wants to pay in Bitcoin & Bitleu currency a contract of 500 million euro value, but it is hard to transfer money because they are now in the investment Deutsche Bank in Germany... Must move them to a commercial bank accepted by DB, and then to an exchange for buying Bitcoin and Bitleu. If everything works well will let you know.
However, we are still looking for a Bitcoin friendly bank in Europe... do you know any?

That's completely irrelevant.

Wow!! Account closed, that's not a good sign. You can sue them from any EU country to get your money back.

Nice photo to debunk the quote. People should stop using the phase over and over again.

By the way, this style of "bank restructuring" is going to be adopted in the whole European Union.
Soon, everyone's uninsured money (over 100K EUR) in EU banks will be at risk of seizure.

I first heard this news from person who is affected. He stated that his money on Hypo-Alpe bank account is gone.

Anyway, Moody's confirmed that this is happening now in Western Europe:

Frankfurt am Main, July 22, 2014 -- On 8 July, the Austrian Parliament passed legislation that allows the government to bail-in the subordinated debt holders of nationalised Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank International AG (HAA) and void the deficiency guarantee of the State of Carinthia (A2 stable) on that portion of the bank's debt. From Moody's perspective, the government's decision to place taxpayers' interests above the rights of creditors is unprecedented to the extent that it reneges on a public-sector guarantee.

The economist had a little info:
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21604580-small-bank-puts-europes-new-dogma-failing-banks-test-hungry-hypo

Plus:
http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3361560/The-spectre-of-bail-in-risk-across-Europe.html

They were to start shipping by then, not complete it.

"In December, 40 million credit card numbers and 70 million addresses, phone numbers and additional pieces of personal information were stolen from the retail giant Target by hackers in Eastern Europe."

That is massive! and shows how much work needs to be done, to secure the traditional payment methods like credit and debit cards. Something they might learn from BTC it seems.

The BTC protocol have only been compromised once, and rectified almost emmediately, because it was viewable publically and spotted quickly. Compare that to the amount of times credit cards and debit cards are being hacked daily.  

Article on vulture funds here is Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-vulture-fund-forces-debt-default-by-argentina-20140731-zyy83.html

Actually it's different

Argentina has the money to pay but the payment is blocked by a court order.

Argentina has the money to pay as per the conditions that were agreed upon with 90% of its creditors.

The other 10% now are demanding that Argentina pay according to different rules.

If Argentina accept these new rules, the other 90% could also ask for the same rules, so that's what's causing the problem.

Again, many people say that about Bitcoin.  You can't just print money out of thin air.  A governement has to do it, and anyone who does is a scammer.  It all depends on your point of view.

It was a short article in the papers quite a few years ago, It was not a kitchen sky-lite, It was a conservatory, It was not his leg, It was his arm, It was not a butchers knife, It was a cheese knife.

On a side note, There was a story in the UK of a robber, Who tried to gain access to a house by climbing on a glass conservatory, The glass gave way and he fell onto a table with a cheese knife cutting his arm.........The robber sued and WON £10K in damages!!

There is the famous story of the burglar who falls through the skylight, falls on a knife and sues the homeowners for leaving the knife out. The actual case involved a teenager who was on the roof of a school and, by the best accounts we can find, was trying to redirect a light because they were trying to play basketball. And while he was on the roof he stepped through the skylight, which had been painted over black. So this may have been a trespasser, but it wasn't a burglar.

Secondly, the incident took place in a school and not a private home. And there had been a previous claim where someone else had stepped through one of these skylights that had been painted black, which made them invisible. So the school knew about it, which was an important part of the case. And there was no knife. So that's an example of the way a story bears some resemblance to the actual events. (The teenager was rendered quadriplegic in the accident and ended up settling with the school.)

This is a quote of Liar Liar w/ Jim Carrey (Jim is Fletcher)
Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof, a burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend, he sued my friend. And because of guys like you *he won*. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?
Fletcher: No!
[Greta looks pleased, but then Fletcher continues]
Fletcher: I'd have got him ten.
[Greta stalks off, appalled]

The movie “Liar Liar” recycled the yarn about the burglar who fell through a skylight and sued the homeowner over his injuries. This widely circulated legend originated in Redding, Calif. A 19-year-old went on the roof of the high school where he had graduated. He fell through a skylight that had been painted over and was left a quadriplegic. After another student had previously fallen through a painted-over skylight at a nearby school, the Redding school contracted with a local concern to board over the skylight to prevent such accidents. Because the Redding school knew of the danger for months without getting the skylight fixed, the school settled with the youth. When President Reagan lamented that a jury had awarded the money to a burglar, he invented the jury and treated a trespasser as a burglar.

Yeh, I remember hearing the same about Bitcoin.  No-one will ever use it.  It's a scam.  You're wasting your time.  Yada yada yada.

Have another coffe mate, and ponder on the thought.. WHAT IF, something happened today. Here or anywhere. Then what would that mean?

Do you understand that there's 1 city in the world right now that's on red fkn alert for a terrorist act?

I've read several articles about this proposal and most of them seem to give the same quote, that merchant and consumers using bitcoin strictly for the sale of Goods and Services are exempt. I view the fact that you collect a 2% fee for providing me the service of access to bitcoin mining software and a service of reasonable security protection from online attackers, makes you a simple merchant and 'us' the consumers of your service. Therefore "We" are not subject to the SDN verification as well as State Licensing. Though you may want to tweak the support page to make it clear 'You are only providing a Service and are not a Bank, Loan Agent, or Monetary Transfer Provider'.

I mean, if people want to use the pool as a bank, then why not charge them extra fees of say 2-5% if it's causing issues with the wallets when one persons like hey, I think I'll withdraw 10 BTC today which messes up withdraws for everyone else until Michael moves some funds around which is what his suggestion / complaint was about.