- Details
Op 27 januari 2022 is een interessante uitspraak van het Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch gepubliceerd. In deze uitspraak neem voorziet het Hof in bestaand rechtstekort mbt de tot de berekening van belastingrente in geval een toegekende verliesverrekening wordt terug gedraaid.
Introductie
Door een fout in een gebruikt softwarepakket wordt een onjuiste aangifte IB 2015 ingediend. Als gevolg daarvan wordt een verlies vastgesteld dat wordt verrekend met het jaar 2012. De aanslag IB 2012 wordt daardoor met € 43.710 verminderd. Belanghebbende heeft dit bedrag ontvangen. Er is geen belastingrente vergoed. Belanghebbende heeft direct een verbeterde aangifte ingediend en de foute verliesverrekening wordt via een navorderingsaanslag teruggedraaid. Daarbij wordt € 9.438 belastingrente berekend over de periode 1 juli 2013 tot en met 2 februari 2019. Het werkelijke rentevoordeel van belanghebbende gedurende de periode dat de teruggaaf tot zijn bezit heeft behoord, bedraagt € 809.
- Details
On January 27, 2022, on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the judgment of the court in Case C- 788/19 European Commission versus Kingdom of Spain for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (ECLI:EU:C:2022:55), was published.
Introduction
By its application, the European Commission requests the Court to declare that:
– by providing that failure to comply with the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or the late submission of ‘Form 720’ results in the classification of those assets as ‘unjustified capital gains’ without the possibility of pleading expiry of the limitation period;
– by automatically imposing a proportional fine of 150% in the event of failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights or late submission of ‘Form 720’; and
– by imposing, in the event of failure to comply with the obligation to provide information concerning overseas assets and rights or of late submission of ‘Form 720’, flat-rate fines which are more severe than the penalties laid down by the general rules on penalties for similar infringements,
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21, 45, 49, 56 and 63 TFEU and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) (‘the EEA Agreement’).
- Details
On January 27, 2022, on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Medina in Case C- 269/20 Finanzamt T versus S (ECLI:EU:C:2022:60), was published.
Introduction
The present reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany) relates to the interpretation of Article 4(4) and point (b) of the first sentence of Article 6(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC and arose in the context of an action between S, a national foundation governed by public law, and Finanzamt T (Tax Office, T, Germany; ‘the Finanzamt’). The dispute relates: first, to the designation of S (qua its role as controlling company), together with the company providing its cleaning services, as a single taxable person for value added tax (VAT) purposes; and second, to the question as to whether a supply of services provided free of charge for a purpose falling within the sphere of the activity that S carries on in an official capacity (and incumbent upon it in the exercise of public authority) may be subject to VAT in accordance with point (b) of the first sentence of Article 6(2) of that directive.
- Details
On January 27, 2022, on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta in Case C- 607/20 GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd versus The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (ECLI:EU:C:2022:68), was published.
Introduction
The present case has layers. At the outer layer is the very interpretation sought by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) in a dispute concerning the obligation to account for output VAT on the transfer of vouchers free of charge from a taxable person to its staff. The referring court is not certain whether that transfer must be considered a supply for ‘private use or for that of his staff or, more generally, for purposes other than those of his business’ under Article 26(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC.
- Details
Op 26 januari 2021 heeft het Nederlandse Ministerie van Financiën een mededeling over de als ontwikkelingsland aangewezen Mogendheden op grond van artikel 6 van het Besluit voorkoming dubbele belasting 2001 (hierna: Bvdb 2001) voor het jaar 2021.
- Details
On January 21, 2022 on the website of the Dutch courts a conclusion of the Dutch Advocate General with respect to the Dutch liquidation loss scheme was published. The conclusion was delivered in case number: 21/02980 (ECLI:NL:PHR:2021:1189).
- Details
On January 21, 2022 the Commission the first phase of a public consultation: “VAT in the digital age”. During this phase European Commission searches for input for an impact assessment. The period during which input can be given for the impact assessment runs from January 20, 2022 until February 17, 2022 (midnight Brussels time).
- Details
On January 20, 2022, on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment of the CJEU in Case C- 90/20, Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S versus Skatteministeriet (ECLI:EU:C:2022:37), was published.
Introduction
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘the VAT Directive’).
The request has been made in proceedings between Apcoa Parking Danmark A/S (‘Apcoa’) and Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation, Denmark) concerning the imposition of value added tax (VAT) on the control fees levied by Apcoa in the event of failure by the motorists to comply with the general terms and conditions for use of the car parks situated on private land managed by Apcoa.
- Details
On January 20, 2022, on the website of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) the opinion of Advocate General Collins in Case C- 572/20 ACC Silicones Ltd versus Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (ECLI:EU:C:2022:48), was published.
Introduction
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the compatibility, with the rules governing the free movement of capital, of the conditions under which German tax legislation permits non-resident companies to obtain the reimbursement of a withholding tax on income from capital consisting of dividends from minority shareholdings in companies established in Germany.
- Details
On January 20, 2022 the OECD released the 2022 version of its Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations.
Page 1 of 3
