Ever since the change in the place of supply rules in the EU VAT Directive in 2010, the outline of the concept of the fixed establishment in EU Value Added Tax (‘EU VAT’) has been unclear and cause for confusion. The recent Dong Yang-case, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) ruled that a subsidiary may well qualify as a fixed establishment for VAT purposes, can be seen to propel this conceptual obscurity to new heights. Based on an analysis of the CJEU’s judgment in the Dong Yang-case in light of the Council Implementing Regulation and previous judgments, the authors substantiate in what way the fixed establishment lacks conceptual clarity and thus gives rise to consequences that are directly contrary to its purpose: to prevent jurisdictional disputes between Member States.