Yes. What matters is not whether anyone used it, but whether a private person bore the VAT for good.
Written by Griet Coussement, founder of Vintro Pro and Vintiques Export
Which law? This page follows the Belgian rules. The Netherlands, France and the UK differ — you will find the comparison further down this page.
Whether anyone ever used an item does not decide whether it is second-hand.
You buy a lot from a private person. Shoes that were never worn and stayed in the box. A dinner service that sat in a cupboard for fifty years. Bottles that were never opened. Can you use the margin scheme, or is this "new" stock?
The French tax administration answered that question on 19 August 2026. The answer is yes — and the reasoning rests on European rules that also apply in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK.
The question was: where a consumer bore the VAT for good and never used the item, keeping it in its original packaging, does it remain a second-hand good?
The answer: whether the goods were physically used or not is irrelevant to the classification. What counts is that the goods kept the functions they had when new, and that the VAT on them was already borne by someone who could not reclaim it.
Both worked examples come from the text itself: a pair of shoes never worn and kept in its original box, and wine bottles resold in their original state. In both cases the dealer's resale falls under the margin scheme.
Source: BOFiP, ruling BOI-RES-TVA-000270 of 19 August 2026 (news item ACTU-2026-00098), on article 297 A of the French tax code. Checked on 1 September 2026.
The margin scheme exists to prevent one thing: the same VAT being paid twice.
A private person who buys something pays VAT and can never deduct it. If they later sell it to a dealer, that VAT is still baked into the price. Charging VAT on the full resale price would tax the same amount a second time. Hence tax on the margin alone.
It is about who bore the VAT
A private person buys
Pays VAT And can never deduct it.Sells it to you
VAT stays in the price Used or not, that changes nothing.You resell
VAT on the margin Not on the full price. Otherwise the same VAT is paid twice.That reasoning does not depend on wear and tear. It depends on who bore the tax. The Court of Justice of the European Union put it that way back in 2017.
Judgment of 18 January 2017, case C-471/15, Sjelle Autogenbrug. The definition itself is in article 311(1)(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC.
The definition comes from the same EU directive, and all four countries copy it almost word for word. Nowhere does it say the goods must have been used.
"suitable for further use, with or without repair" — FPS Finance, art. 58 §4 VAT Code
"can be used again, as they are or after repair" — art. 2a Wet OB
"susceptibles de remploi, en l'état ou après réparation" — art. 98 A annex III CGI
"tangible movable property that is suitable for further use as it is or after repair" — SI 1995/1268, art. 2
Use being irrelevant does not mean everything qualifies. Two conditions remain.
On that second point there is a nuance worth keeping: the ruling states that the private seller's sales must stay small and infrequent enough not to make them a taxable person. If your seller offers lots every week, "they are a private person" is no longer a safe assumption.
Two questions. Use is not one.
Yes
Yes
Result
Margin schemeEven if the piece was never used.Your “private person” offers lots every week? Then the second answer is no longer a safe yes.
Second-hand or not
Yes, according to the ruling
No
Works of art, collectors' items and antiques are not "second-hand goods" under this definition — but they have their own place in the same margin scheme, with extra rules of their own.
This ruling changes nothing in your admin. What it does remove is a doubt that often led to the wrong call: keeping unused pieces out of the margin scheme, and paying VAT on the whole selling price instead.
What you keep recording per item: who you bought it from, what you paid, and that the seller could not charge VAT. That is what an inspector wants to see — not whether the piece shows signs of use.
Per item, in your stock list
Yes. The definition asks whether they are suitable for further use, not whether they were used.
The definition is identical, but a ruling binds the French administration only. Elsewhere it is an argument.
Yes, if the seller could not charge VAT and the goods are suitable for further use.
No. Precious metals and precious stones are excluded.
They may become a taxable person, and the assumption falls away. The ruling names this expressly.
Vintro Pro keeps purchase price, sale price and margin together per piece, including when the buyer lives across the border — ready for your accountant.