Avem decizia:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2jq1e13jj7u37i/ECJ%20Bitcoin%20decision.pdf?dl=022 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 2(1)(c) of the VAT
Directive must be interpreted as meaning that transactions such as those at issue in the main
proceedings, which consist of the exchange of traditional currency for units of the ‘bitcoin’
virtual currency and vice versa, in return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between,
on the one hand, the price paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand,
the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, constitutes the supply of services for
consideration within the meaning of that article.
24 It must be held, first, that the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency with bidirectional flow, which will be
exchanged for traditional currencies in the context of exchange transactions, cannot be
characterised as ‘tangible property’ within the meaning of Article 14 of the VAT Directive,
given that, as the Advocate General has observed in point 17 of her Opinion, that virtual
currency has no purpose other than to be a means of payment.
26 Consequently, the transactions at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange
of different means of payment, do not fall within the concept of the ‘supply of goods’, laid down
in Article 14 of the directive. In those circumstances, those transactions constitute the supply of
services, within the meaning of Article 24 of the VAT Directive.
32 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 135(1)(d) to (f) of
the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services such as those at
issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of traditional currencies for units
of the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency and vice versa, performed in return for payment of a sum equal
to the difference between, on the one hand, the price paid by the operator to purchase the
currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, are
exempt from VAT.
57 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that:
– Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of
services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of
traditional currencies for units of the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency and vice versa, performed
in return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the price
paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he
sells that currency to his clients, are transactions exempt from VAT, within the meaning of
that provision;
CHAPTER 3
Exemptions for other activities
Article 135
1. Member States shall exempt the following transactions:
(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;
Inteleg ca ei considera bitcoin drept means of payment, care este exclus in sine de la TVA, iar schimbul de means of payment (euro si bitcoin de exemplu) este exclus de la TVA.Vlad
