CJEU rules on year-end TP adjustments and VAT
13/05/26
On 13 May 2026, the CJEU delivered its judgment in Stellantis Portugal (C-603/24), a long-running dispute on whether end-of-year transfer pricing adjustments within a multinational group should be regarded as consideration for a VAT-taxable supply of services. The CJEU held that such adjustments do not, in themselves, constitute consideration for a VAT-taxable service, unless a legal relationship exists between the companies that establishes a direct link between the services supplied and the adjustment.
Background
General Motors Portugal (GMP), later absorbed by Stellantis Portugal, acted as the national sales company in Portugal. It bought vehicles from European OEMs of the General Motors group and resold them to independent Portuguese dealers. The dealers carried out warranty, recall and roadside assistance repairs, and invoiced their costs, plus VAT, to GMP.
Under an intra-group agreement, the transfer prices of vehicles sold by the OEMs to GMP were adjusted at the end of each reference period to guarantee GMP a predetermined profit margin. The adjustment took the form of a credit or debit note issued by the OEMs to GMP and reflected GMP's distribution costs, including repair costs and operating costs such as personnel, electricity and marketing.
Following an audit, the Portuguese tax authority requalified the arrangement as a supply of repair services by GMP to the OEMs and issued a VAT assessment. After conflicting national rulings, the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo asked the CJEU whether such adjustments fall within the scope of VAT.
CJEU Judgment
As a starting point, the CJEU recalled its earlier case law, a service is supplied for consideration only if there is a direct link between the service supplied and the payment received, within a legal relationship under which reciprocal performances are exchanged.
In the case of Stellantis Portugal, the legal relationship between GMP and the OEMs was based on the intra-group agreement, which governed transfer prices and aimed to ensure a predetermined profit margin, rather than establishing a repair obligation owed by GMP to the OEMs. None of its clauses suggested that GMP was required, in exchange for payment, to repair the vehicles it had purchased.
The CJEU observed that the adjustments were calculated by reference to all of GMP's distribution and operating costs, not only repair costs, and could result in either credit or debit notes depending on the target margin. Once the predetermined margin was reached, GMP had no assurance of being reimbursed for repair costs. Any link with a possible repair service was therefore, at most, indirect.
Therefore, the CJEU ruled that a transfer pricing adjustment which is set out in an intra-group agreement, aimed at achieving a predeterminded profit margin, evidenced by a credit or debit note and calculated on the basis of costs that include third-party repairs, does not constitute payment for a service supplied for consideration, unless a separate legal relationship with reciprocal commitments and a direct link can be established.
If the referring court considers that the adjustment is not the consideration for a service but rather an ex-post modification of the price paid by GMP for the vehicles, the competent national authorities will need to assess the impact on the taxable base of the original supply.
What this means for your organisation
This judgment is relevant for internationally operating organisations that apply year-end transfer pricing adjustments. According to the CJEU, such adjustments should not by default be treated as consideration for a VAT-taxable supply of services. They only fall within the scope of VAT as consideration for supplies of services where there is evidence of a direct link between the adjustment and an identifiable service between the group companies.The Court also made clear that the mere inclusion of service-related costs in a transfer pricing formula does not necessarily create such a direct link. Where the adjustment depends on broader profitability and cost factors, any link with a possible service may be only indirect.
The judgment confirms and continues the existing line of case law on the need for a direct link between a supply of services and the consideration received, but it remains largely silent on some of the broader and more complex questions that can arise at the intersection of transfer pricing and VAT.
In her opinion in the Stellantis-case, Advocate General Kokott expressed reservations about the practical guidance provided by the earlier CJEU judgment in Arcomet Towercranes (C-726/23). The Advocate General proposed a more structured approach to the VAT consequences of transfer pricing adjustments, distinguishing three situations with potentially different VAT outcomes (as described in our earlier tax alert). The CJEU does not explicitly adopt this broader framework, instead limiting its answer to the direct-link test and the specific transfer pricing adjustment at hand.
For organisations, this means it is worth reviewing intra-group TP policies and supporting documentation to confirm whether year-end true-ups are documented as price adjustments or as payment for an identifiable intra-group service. It is also worth considering whether any historical adjustments should instead be treated as adjustments to the taxable base of the underlying supply.
Our PwC Indirect Tax team is ready to advise and support you through this process. Feel free to contact us with any questions or for more information.
Contact us
Follow us
