tag: VAT

When it comes to instances of compensation, this is not always the case. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has recently reiterated that compensation for damages or contractual penalties may also qualify as consideration for a service for the purposes of VAT. This is important because consideration (i.e. the price of a service) is subject to VAT, whereas compensation is not. This could affect so-called loyalty periods or other fixed-term services in particular.

It has long been a problem that the tax authority refuses to refund to a supplier the VAT that has already paid by him, even if the customer has not paid the gross purchase price at all. However, in a recent ruling, the European Court of Justice has clearly ruled that if the claim has become definitively unrecoverable, the Hungarian tax authority NAV is also required to refund the VAT on that claim to the seller. This decision now also allows other affected taxpayers to request a refund of the VAT on their unrecoverable receivables within a maximum of six months.

A recently released NAV guidance gives a list of those signs that could indicate that a security firm is involved in VAT fraud. The list will certainly help companies that accept invoices from such security firms, but it’s still a pity that the guidance wasn’t issued ten years earlier.

It has been clear for some time that Hungary is in breach of EU law by not allowing the refunding of VAT on bad debts. The fact that cases of Hungarian taxpayers have now been brought before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has forced Hungarian lawmakers to move on the issue. While the package of tax amendments submitted last week provides an opportunity to reclaim such VAT, in certain cases – due to the planned administrative restrictions – it will still only be possible to enjoy this right with reference to EU law.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has declared in a recent case that when checking VAT transactions, the tax authority cannot ignore examining the full budgetary impact. Thus it is not acceptable for the authorities to deny the right of VAT deduction to a taxpayer without allowing the other taxpayer to accordingly reclaim the VAT that it paid. Furthermore, the court also found it unacceptable for the tax authority to base a fine only on the amount of the VAT deducted unlawfully without examining the tax shortfall actually caused. The ruling can be considered as another important step towards the creation of a fair VAT system.

The deductibility of the VAT content of incoming invoices has long been a source of consternation both for equity investors and for the holding companies heading up corporate groups. In a relaxation of the general ban on VAT deduction in these cases, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) has given ‘active’ holding companies a way around the restrictions. Meanwhile, other recent judgments by the Court have further expanded the opportunities for VAT deduction. Nevertheless, the ECJ’s decisions also show that it’s better to err on the side of caution.

The rules on VAT-exempt intra-Community supplies of goods have long been a source of worry for businesses. It is not uncommon for the tax authority to deny tax exemption on such transactions on the grounds that the goods never left the country. Although a recently accepted proposal by the EU clarifies the rules, complying with them entails a great deal of bureaucracy for companies that deliver to EU markets.

In its judgement passed a few weeks ago, the treatment of European Court of Justice (ECJ) was flexible in the interpretation of the VAT “triangular transactions”. While this decision in favour of the taxpayer creates a tax planning opportunity for businesses involved in international trade of goods, it pays off to be cautions on the other side.