The private member’s bill concerns cross-border reorganizations by companies (head offices) resident in the Netherlands that are members of a group as referred to in Section 24b of the Dutch Civil Code or similar foreign rules with a consolidated net turnover of at least EUR 750 million.
On July 2, 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered judgment in the A Oy case (C-215/19). The case concerned whether co-location services must be regarded as the leasing of immovable property or as another immovable property service. In many EU Member States the VAT treatment of co-location services is not uniform and this judgment thus provides practical guidance.
On July 2, 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) rendered judgment in the BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited case (C-231/19). The CJEU concluded that a single fund management service cannot be partly VAT-exempt. The outcome of this judgment is not only important for taxpayers that are involved with investment funds, but also for providers and purchasers of other types of composite services.
As of July 1, 2020 the Netherlands will no longer maintain the travel ban for citizens of the following 14 countries: Algeria, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Rwanda, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia and Uruguay. The travel ban for Chinese citizens will be lifted as soon as China again allows EU citizens to enter the country.
OTP is the management of transfer pricing data, processes and governance using technology. An effective OTP program aligns transfer pricing requirements with commercial goals.
This article explores why OTP is now attracting renewed attention, it dispels common misconceptions about OTP and highlights its potential benefits.
During the parliamentary debates on the Dutch implementation of the Mandatory Disclosure Rules (DAC6) it was acknowledged that, in practice, it can be difficult to determine whether or not a certain arrangement is reportable. The Guidelines for Reportable Cross-border Arrangements published on June 30, 2020 by Decree dated June 24, 2020, provide further details about the reporting obligation for ‘Dutch’ intermediaries or ‘relevant taxpayers’.
On June 26, 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the VAT on running costs (‘instandhoudingskosten’) for a vacant office building is deductible, even if the owner cannot prove, on the basis of objective information, their intention to lease out the property subject to VAT. This judgment has an important outcome for the real estate practice.
Recently, agreement was reached at the EU level on postponing by six months the deadline(s) for notifying reportable cross-border arrangements to the Dutch tax authorities under the Mandatory Disclosure Rules (DAC6). By letter to the Lower House of Parliament dated June 26, 2020, the Deputy Minister informed the Lower House that he will also be granting a postponement in the Netherlands by way of a policy statement of the same date enclosed with that letter.
The Supreme Court ruled that the chairperson or an ordinary member of a complaints advisory committee within the meaning of Section 7:13 of the General Administrative Law Act does not qualify as a VAT taxable person. To date, the Dutch tax authorities have designated members of a complaints advisory committee as VAT taxable persons. This judgment therefore deviates from current Dutch practice.
In this edition of the FS Tax Newsletter we address two developments initiated by the Dutch tax authorities: the further development of horizontal monitoring and the cancellation of rulings confirming the VAT exemption for investment management services provided to CLOs. We also discuss four other VAT-related subjects: an interesting judgment from the Court of Appeals Den Bosch regarding the VAT recovery methodology of a financial institution, the opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the VAT treatment of purchased investment management services that are used for both Special Investment Funds as well as non-Special Investment Funds, a judgment by the Noord-Holland District Court on the VAT position of a company pension fund, and recent developments with respect to the term ‘fixed establishment’ for VAT purposes