Post by account_disabled on Dec 23, 2023 23:27:10 GMT -7
Athe leased asset by way of a unilateral declaration of intent either free of charge or following payment of a symbolic fee are to be treated as being supplies of goods. In the second instance however the particular circumstances of a specific agreement may indicate that the transaction constitutes a supply of services. . On the other hand I do not believe that the presumption that following the expiry of the lease term the ownership of the leased asset will be transferred to the lessee should be extended to other situations which according to IAS should be included in finance leasing.
This undoubtedly applies in regard to the situations described in Country Email List paragraph c and e of ISA which do not at all envisage a transfer of ownership of the leased asset following the end of the lease. described in paragraph of IAS of which two a and b concern only the transfer of the contractual risk to the lessee and the third c rules out altogether the transfer of ownership as it provides for the extension of the lease for a secondary period. . Contrary to the Commissions view set out in its observations in the present case.
I also do not believe that a leasing agreement should be regarded as a supply of goods in the situation described in paragraph b of IAS . The decision to acquire the leased asset as owner need not depend exclusively on its price but is based more on an analysis of the needs of the business and the usefulness of the asset in its future business activity or the possibility of selling it at an attractive price. If the purchase price forms a significant part of the total price of the asset nothing in my view.
This undoubtedly applies in regard to the situations described in Country Email List paragraph c and e of ISA which do not at all envisage a transfer of ownership of the leased asset following the end of the lease. described in paragraph of IAS of which two a and b concern only the transfer of the contractual risk to the lessee and the third c rules out altogether the transfer of ownership as it provides for the extension of the lease for a secondary period. . Contrary to the Commissions view set out in its observations in the present case.
I also do not believe that a leasing agreement should be regarded as a supply of goods in the situation described in paragraph b of IAS . The decision to acquire the leased asset as owner need not depend exclusively on its price but is based more on an analysis of the needs of the business and the usefulness of the asset in its future business activity or the possibility of selling it at an attractive price. If the purchase price forms a significant part of the total price of the asset nothing in my view.