Year-end tax bulletin 2018 - NOVEMBER 2018 - Loyens & Loeff
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
1
NOVEMBER 2018
Year-end tax
bulletin 2018
Year-end tax bulletin 2018 3
Introduction
We are pleased to present you with our year-end tax bulletin.
This year-end tax bulletin summarises the most significant 2018 tax developments in our home markets, the Benelux
and Switzerland, and highlights the main legislative changes announced for 2019. It also provides an insight into major
international and EU developments. The focus is on the developments and changes relating to internationally operating
enterprises.
Given the general nature of this year-end tax bulletin, the information contained in this publication should not be regarded
as a substitute for detailed legal advice. You are, however, most welcome to contact your regular Loyens & Loeff adviser
if you would like to receive more information on any of the topics in this year-end tax bulletin.
Kind regards,
Loyens & Loeff
November 2018
In this year-end tax bulletin 2018
International developments 5
Developments in the Netherlands 15
Developments in Belgium 25
Developments in Luxembourg 31
Developments in Switzerland 37
< back to indexpage
Year-end tax bulletin 2018 5
International developments
Main changes in international taxation in more detail
OECD developments
During the course of 2018 the OECD has continued its
work on the BEPS project mostly focused now on its
implementation. We highlight the following documents
published throughout this year:
- On 8 February 2018 and again on 13 September
Harmen van Dam 2018, additional interpretative guidance was
T +31 10 224 63 48 released to provide certainty to tax administrations
E harmen.van.dam@loyensloeff.com and Multinational Enterprises (“MNEs”) and alike
on Country-by-Country Reporting (“CbCR”). The
“Many MNEs are changing their structures to additional guidance deals with specific issues such
comply with the new international standards as the definition of total consolidated group revenue,
by aligning their legal and business structures, the treatment of dividends received and the number
improving their transfer pricing documentation and of employees to be reported in cases where an
preparing for full transparency of their tax position. MNE uses proportional consolidation in preparing its
Sometimes this leads to the concentration of consolidated financial statements.
existing functions and activities in a single entity. - Subsequently and on 9 March 2018, the OECD
Often this then also leads to an overall increase issued new model disclosure rules requiring lawyers,
of operational activities in our home market accountants, financial advisors, banks and other
countries as a whole. service providers to inform tax authorities of any
schemes they put in place for their clients to avoid
Other areas are gaining importance: practical reporting under the OECD/G20 Common Reporting
solutions to reduce double taxation due to Standard (“CRS”) or to prevent the identification of the
transfer pricing corrections, unexpected beneficial owners of entities or trusts.
application of multiple anti-abuse rules, higher - On 16 March 2018, the OECD released their
withholding taxes and new interest deduction Interim Report on the Tax Challenges Arising from
limitations. Our international tax specialists have Digitalisation (see page 6 and 7 for more information).
broad experience with these challenges!” - On 22 March 2018, additional guidance was
published on the attribution of profits to permanent
establishments. This guidance was mandated in the
2015 Report on BEPS Action 7 that recommended
changes to article 5 of the OECD Model Tax
Convention. The guidance provides high-level
general principles for the attribution of profits to
permanent establishments arising under article 5(5),
in accordance with applicable treaty provisions, and
includes examples of a commissionaire structure
< back to indexpage
6
for the sale of goods, an online advertising sales The timing of when the MLI applies to specific tax treaties
structure and a procurement structure. It also will depend on when jurisdictions complete their domestic
includes additional guidance relating to permanent ratification procedures in respect of the MLI. Notably,
establishments arising as a result of the changes to the MLI entered into force on 1 July 2018 for the first
article 5(4) and provides an example of the attribution 5 jurisdictions that ratified the MLI – Austria, Isle of Man,
of profits to permanent establishments arising from Jersey, Poland and Slovenia. For New Zealand, Serbia,
the anti-fragmentation rule included in article 5(4.1). Sweden and the UK, the MLI entered into force on
- On 21 June 2018, the OECD released new guidance 1 October 2018. Furthermore, Australia, France, Israel,
on the application of the approach to hard-to-value Japan, Lithuania and the Slovak Republic deposited their
intangibles (BEPS Action 8) and the transactional ratification instruments, with entry into force expected
profit split method (BEPS Action 10). The new as of 1 January 2019. The tax treaties between our
guidance for tax administrations on the application home market jurisdictions (the Netherlands, Belgium,
of the approach to hard-to-value intangibles is Luxembourg and Switzerland) and the above-mentioned
aimed at reaching a common understanding and jurisdictions are not impacted yet, as our home market
practice among tax administrations on how to apply jurisdictions have yet to ratify the MLI. The earliest date
adjustments resulting from the application of this the MLI is expected to apply in practice for our home
approach. The revised guidance on the profit split market jurisdictions is 1 January 2020.
method retains the basic premise that the profit split
method should be applied where it is found to be the Whether a specific MLI provision applies depends on
most appropriate method for the case at hand, but it whether a treaty is listed by both treaty partners, as well
significantly expands the guidance available to help as on the choices and reservations made by both of
determine when that may be the case. It also contains these jurisdictions. An overview of the decisions by our
more guidance on how to apply the method, as well four home markets can be found on our website. For
as numerous examples. the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland,
- On 3 July 2018, the OECD published the long- we have catalogued the decisions made by these four
awaited public discussion draft on the transfer pricing jurisdictions in combination with the decisions made by
aspects of financial transactions (further information other jurisdictions, in order to determine whether and
in our Tax Flash of 4 July 2018). This draft provides how a provision will apply. The matching database is
guidance on general pricing issues in relation to subsequently being used as the basis for our MLI Quick
intragroup financing, as well as on specific pricing Scan Tool, which can provide a risk analysis on the
issues regarding cash pooling, hedging transactions, potential impact of the MLI on a structure or investment
guarantees and captive insurance structures. via these four jurisdictions, for a range of scenarios.
Although the draft is not final yet, it will likely be used
already as a source and support for discussions with
the tax authorities, as many tax authorities currently Taxation of the digital economy
audit the transfer pricing of financial transactions.
During 2018, tax policymakers have kept on pushing
forward the focus on the taxation of companies with a
Multilateral Instrument digital business model that was initiated in mid-2017.
Their perception is that tech companies do not pay their
The BEPS project reached a historic milestone on 7 June fair share of corporate tax, regardless of the 2015 BEPS
2017, when a large number of jurisdictions signed the deliverables and the implementation of these in many
Multilateral Instrument (“MLI”). In the meantime, in total 84 countries, including the EU. Also in 2018, the digital
jurisdictions have signed the MLI and more jurisdictions economy has remained a high priority on the EU and the
are expected to do so in the near future. The MLI intends OECD tax agenda.
to modify existing tax treaties and bring them in line
with the currently accepted BEPS standards. A general Within the EU, the European Commission launched its
description of the MLI can be found in last year’s bulletin “Digital Tax Package” on 21 March 2018. The package
on page 6. contains proposals regarding the taxation of the “digital
economy” in the EU. The Commission pursues a binary
< back to indexpage
Year-end tax bulletin 2018 7
strategy: comprehensive reform, introducing the concept companies throughout the EU. In our view, it will be
of “significant digital presence” and “digital permanent very difficult, if not impossible, to ring-fence the digital
establishment”, and an interim measure consisting economy for tax purposes. Consequently, there is a risk
of a digital services tax of 3% on the revenues from that these taxation reform initiatives with regard to digital
certain digital services (“DST”). The Commission has economy also affect the traditional economy. An overview
proposed two stand-alone Council Directives to ensure of the international developments is available here.
a harmonised approach within the EU and aims for an
entry into force on 1 January 2020. The Commission
has also published a recommendation to implement the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive
digital economic presence in tax treaties between EU
Member States and third countries. Political deliberations The EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (Council Directive
have been taking place at several of the EU’s institutional (EU) 2016/1164, also referred to as “ATAD”) was
levels since, but agreement on the way forward is yet adopted on 12 July 2016. Most rules from ATAD need
to be reached. The reason for this seems to be that to be implemented in domestic law by 1 January 2019.
the proposals forwarded not only face issues of a more The (proposals for) domestic implementation in the
legal-technical nature but also are prone to result in a Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg are discussed in
redistribution of company tax base among the Member the country-specific parts of this year-end tax bulletin.
States. Most Member States take the position that
long-term measures in this respect should preferably be The ATAD was amended by Council Directive (EU)
taken at a global, i.e., OECD, level rather than a regional 2017/952 of 29 May 2017, mostly focusing on the
or country level. The Austrian Presidency now aims topic of hybrid mismatches. These rules need to be
at reaching political agreement on a DST (short-term implemented in domestic law by 1 January 2020
measure) before this year-end. More detailed information and 1 January 2022. The (proposals for) domestic
on the EU developments in this respect is available here. implementation in the Netherlands, Belgium and
Luxembourg are also discussed in the country-specific
Alongside the EU initiatives, the OECD released an interim parts of this year-end bulletin.
report on the tax challenges arising from digitalisation
on 16 March 2018, as the report on BEPS Action 1
(addressing the Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy) International transparency developments
left key issues open for further discussions. While some
jurisdictions such as France, Hungary, Italy and India Mandatory Disclosure Directive
have already undertaken unilateral action, the OECD’s On 25 May 2018, the Council of the European Union
report reveals that no international consensus exists adopted a Council Directive introducing mandatory
on the merit, or need even, of taking any measures on disclosure rules for EU-linked intermediaries such as
the matter in the first place. Differences in countries’ lawyers, accountants and tax advisers (“MD Directive”).
approaches can be categorised threefold. The first group The MD Directive obliges EU Member States to
of countries takes the view that the tax challenges raised implement rules based on which qualifying intermediaries,
by digitalisation can be properly addressed via targeted and under certain circumstances taxpayers, need to
measures. The second group considers this cannot report certain arrangements to the relevant tax authorities.
be done, and takes the perspective that digitalisation These arrangements concern potentially aggressive
presents fundamental challenges to the sustainability tax planning arrangements with a cross-border
of the existing business taxation framework. The third dimension and arrangements designed to circumvent
group is generally satisfied with the existing framework, reporting requirements such as the Common Reporting
also in view of the BEPS package which already largely Standard and ultimate beneficial owner reporting. The
addresses many of the prevailing concerns. tax authorities will exchange the information received
automatically with all other Member States through a
Although the topic has clearly remained a priority centralised database.
throughout 2018, it is still too early to determine at this
time whether sufficient political momentum exists for The obligation to disclose may not be enforceable
the introduction of a specific tax regime targeting digital on an intermediary due to legal professional privilege
< back to indexpage
8
(depending on the domestic implementation), or because Ultimate beneficial owner register
the intermediary does not have a presence within the EU. The EU has put a great deal of effort into tax transparency
It might also be the case that there is no intermediary and anti-money laundering measures. Accordingly, all
involved because the taxpayer designs and implements a EU Member States must keep a register containing the
scheme in-house. In these circumstances, the disclosure details of the individuals that are known as the ”ultimate
obligation shifts to the taxpayer if no other intermediary is beneficial owners” of legal entities and other entities
involved. based in the EU (the UBO-register). Pursuant to the fourth
Anti-Money Laundering Directive (“AMLD 4”), Member
Member States must implement the MD Directive by States should have implemented the UBO register by
31 December 2019 at the latest and apply the provisions 25 June 2017. Not all Member States have met this
from 1 July 2020 onwards. All reportable arrangements deadline and some EU Member States have not
of which the first step is implemented within the time implemented the UBO register as yet.
frame between 25 June 2018 and 1 July 2020 must be
reported ultimately on 31 August 2020. As a result of In December 2017, the EU reached agreement on a
this retroactive effect, intermediaries as well as taxpayers proposal for a directive amending AMLD 4, including
must now start monitoring what information they may the UBO register contained therein. These amendments
need to disclose in 2020 about structures that are being are included in the fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive
advised on or have been implemented since 25 June (“AMLD 5”), which entered into effect on 9 July 2018.
2018.
In accordance with AMLD 5, the minimum UBO threshold
For taxpayers it is advisable to organise themselves to (25% plus one) will not be lowered and all EU UBO
be in control of the consequences of the implementation registers for companies and other legal entities must be
of the MD Directive. The following suggestions are accessible to the general public. Furthermore, all Member
recommended: States must provide for a UBO register for trusts that
are established in, are residing in, are managed in (for
- Discuss and streamline with your advisers the example because the trustee is residing there) or enter
information which potentially will have to be filed with into certain business transactions in that Member State.
the tax authorities on the arrangement, especially if The UBOs of a trust are the settlor(s), the trustee(s), the
more than one intermediary is involved; protector, the beneficiaries or classes of beneficiaries
- Review cross-border arrangements which are and any other natural person exercising ultimate control
developed in-house or where only non-EU advisers over the foundation by other means. The UBO register
are involved whether they are reportable under the for trusts will not be publicly accessible, but will only be
MD Directive. If so, or if as a result of the lack of available to persons who can demonstrate a “legitimate
detailed guidelines the position is unclear, include interest”.
information in a sort of database to ensure that a
possible future obligation to report can be properly According to AMLD 5, the UBO register for legal entities
fulfilled (given the retrospective effect); and should be implemented by 10 January 2020 and the
- Be aware whether the intermediary involved is entitled UBO-register for trusts should be implemented by
to a waiver, even in the situation in which the formal 10 March 2020.
reporting obligation will shift to another intermediary
involved in the arrangement. Depending on the local Country-by-Country Reporting
implementation the reporting obligation may shift to A large number of OECD and G20 member states
the taxpayer. In such a situation it is recommended implemented Country-by-Country Reporting (“CbCR”)
to keep track of information in the above-mentioned obligations in their domestic legislation, effective as
database. of 2016. Several countries introduced voluntary filing
for 2016 and 2017. Based on Council Directive (EU)
For more detailed information, see Quoted of 29 October 2016/881 of 25 May 2016 amending Directive 2011/16/
2018. EU, EU Member States are obliged to implement
secondary CbCR per 2017. Large MNEs are getting
themselves prepared for filing their second CbC report.
< back to indexpage
Year-end tax bulletin 2018 9
Because of the increase in number of secondary filing the Belgian excess profit ruling scheme, Starbucks (the
obligations, MNEs may be faced with multiple local filing Netherlands), Fiat (Luxembourg), Amazon (Luxembourg),
obligations for 2017. ENGIE (Luxembourg) and Apple (Ireland). The
Commission is still expected to open additional formal
Per October 2018, 74 countries signed the Multilateral investigations.
Competent Authority Agreement (“MCAA”) for the
automatic exchange of CbC reports. The MCAA is an Some fundamental legal questions have been
important milestone towards the effectuation of the BEPS raised before the EU General Court, including (i) the
project. Parties to the MCAA will exchange CbC reports (discretionary) interpretation of the arm’s length principle,
only if they have an “activated relationship”. The amended (ii) the role of the OECD transfer pricing guidelines and the
EU Directive 2011/16/EU (as per May 2016) also provides possibility to apply certain guidance retroactively and (iii)
for the mandatory automatic exchange of CbC reports the role of domestic law and practice versus an alleged
among Member States within 15 months after the last arm’s length principle embedded in EU State aid rules.
day of the fiscal year of the group.
The Commission’s decision in the McDonald’s case
Besides the further implementation of local CbCR filing is the first of the recent decisions on tax rulings that
obligations, the international focus in 2018 has been concludes the absence of illegal State aid. The case
on the first exchange of CbC reports which took place concerned a hybrid mismatch resulting in the double
in June 2018 and analysing the CbC reports filed and non-taxation of a branch’s income. The Commission
exchanged. found that Luxembourg had interpreted the permanent
establishment concept in line with its domestic definition
The OECD continues to regularly issue guidance on and correctly applied the United States-Luxembourg
the implementation of CbCR obligations and practical tax treaty. For more information see, our Tax Flash of
implications, of which the last publication dates from 19 September 2018.
September 2018. For MNEs that have their Ultimate
Parent Entity (“UPE”) in a country that has not yet A wider scope of State aid review
introduced obligatory CbCR filing for 2017, it could be While the first cases focused on transfer pricing issues,
considered to appoint a Surrogate Parent Entity (“SPE”) the Commission has broadened its scope of review. In
in a country that has concluded an extensive network the ENGIE case, as well as the principal lines of argument
covering the exchange of CbC reports and that follows relating to the existence of an alleged (domestic)
a practical approach for the completion of the CbCR. mismatch, the Commission also developed an alternative
In that way, the MNE can minimise the number of local reasoning based on the abuse concept. It considered that
filings that it would have to do and also prepare the CbCR Luxembourg should have applied its general anti-abuse
in accordance with a practical approach. In the spring of rules to the arrangement set up by several Luxembourg-
2018, the OECD published a compilation of approaches resident companies of the ENGIE group.
adopted by jurisdictions, which may be of use in choosing
an SPE. Actions to take by taxpayers
To mitigate State aid exposure going forward, corporate
taxpayers should:
State aid
- Properly document the rationale of their transactions,
Current status e.g. in board minutes or introductory sections of
In 2018, the European Commission continued its State agreements; and
aid investigations into tax rulings and regimes. Pending - Avail themselves of transfer pricing documentation
investigations concern Inter Ikea in the Netherlands that conforms to the current domestic and
(formal State aid investigation into two tax rulings), international standards, including the 2017 OECD
the UK CFC financing exemption and the Gibraltar tax transfer pricing guidelines.
ruling regime. Six other cases, in which the Commission
ordered the recovery of allegedly illegal State aid, are now
pending before the EU General Court. They concern:
< back to indexpage10
Other EU developments taxation. This judgment is relevant as the CJEU reaffirmed
the Marks & Spencer exception: deduction of foreign
Court of Justice of the EU case law losses should be allowed whenever they are final under
During 2018, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) the conditions set in the Marks & Spencer decision.
rendered several important decisions in the field of
direct taxation. In this context we highlight the decision
in the joined cases Deister Holding and Juhler Holding VAT
(C-504/16 and C-613/16) as these cases have a
strong impact on EU anti-abuse rules and substance Quick fixes for cross-border trade adopted by Ecofin
requirements for holding companies (see EUTA 173 On 2 October 2018, the Economic and Financial Affairs
for more detailed information). In these decisions the Council (“Ecofin”) adopted four quick fixes to improve
CJEU confirmed that the German anti-abuse provision cross-border trade within the EU and the control on that
for withholding tax relief for dividends paid by a German trade. These fixes were in a slightly different form to that
company to certain parent companies resident in proposed by the European Commission in 2017. The
another EU Member State is too general. Therefore, quick fixes will enter into force as of 2020 and need to be
that provision was considered incompatible with the implemented by the EU Member States before the end of
EU Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the EU freedom of 2019.
establishment. For the CJEU, neither the tax treatment
of the EU parent company’s shareholders nor the type The four quick fixes are:
or composition of economic activities of the EU parent
company is relevant for assessing the existence of abuse. - Uniform simplifications introduced for the VAT
treatment of call-off stock, i.e. arrangements where
This judgment will have an impact on anti-abuse companies move goods from one Member State to
provisions in other Member States. In the Netherlands another where they are to be stored before being
for instance, the Dutch government has expressed supplied to a business customer known in advance.
its intention to also allow (potential) taxpayers to Under these rules, the obligation to register can be
demonstrate in another manner that valid business avoided;
reasons reflecting economic reality are present (see - Chain transactions: currently, where goods are
page 20). Another relevant decision was the judgment in supplied in a chain of successive supplies with only
the joined Dutch cases X NV and N BV (C-398/16 and one intra-EU transport movement (so-called “chain-
C-399/16). These cases dealt with the application of the transactions”), the intra-Community supply and
“per-element approach” in the context of the Dutch tax exemption can only be applied to the transaction
consolidation regime (fiscal unity) in situations concerning as part of which the transport takes place. Going
(i) the Dutch interest deduction limitation rule to prevent forward, the exemption will in principle be attributed
base erosion and (ii) the non-deductibility of currency only to the first supply;
losses on a participation in a non-Dutch/EU subsidiary. - EU transport: for the VAT exemption to apply, goods
In general, the CJEU confirmed that the so-called “per- are presumed to have been dispatched to another EU
element approach” adopted by the CJEU in the Groupe Member State, if the supplier has at least two of non-
Steria judgment is also applicable for the Dutch fiscal contradictory items on a list of accepted documents;
unity regime. For further information, see our Tax Flash and
of 22 February 2018. This decision had a considerable - The VAT identification number and the EC sales listing
impact as it led to proposed amendments to the Dutch are currently mere administrative requirements and
fiscal unity regime (see page 19 of this year-end tax thus not essential for the VAT exemption (or zero rate
bulletin) having retro-effective force. for some of the EU Member States). This will change.
In addition to proving the transport of goods to
Lastly, the decision in the Bevola case (C-650/16) of another EU Member state, the supplier should (i) have
12 June 2018 is worth mentioning. The case dealt with the a valid VAT identification number of the recipient of
Danish legislation that precludes the possibility to deduct the goods and (ii) include the supply in the EC sales
losses incurred by a foreign permanent establishment, listing.
even if those losses are final, unless the resident Danish
company has opted for a scheme of joint international For more information, see our Tax Flash of 2 October 2018.
< back to indexpageYear-end tax bulletin 2018 11
Reduced rate for electronic publication possible the takeover bid failed and the intended involvement
After many years of debate the Ecofin finally reached in the management of the target was not possible. As
agreement to align the VAT treatment of e-publications Ryanair intended to pursue an economic activity with the
with the VAT treatment of tangible publications. EU acquisition of Aer Lingus, namely the supply of VAT taxed
Member States are allowed to apply a reduced or zero management services, the abort costs were incurred
rate for e-publications twenty days after the publication of for this purpose. Hence, these costs are directly and
the amendment to the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC in immediately linked to an economic activity and thus the
the Official Journal of the European Union. VAT is deductible. The final decision in this case may have
a significant VAT impact for companies in a great variety
General reverse charge mechanism approved of sectors. For more information, see our Tax Flash of
In the battle against VAT fraud, the Ecofin decided to 17 October 2018
allow EU Member States – as a temporary measure – to
apply the reverse charge mechanism for VAT also for CJEU: tight rules for VAT on mixed costs
domestic services provided that the transaction value The CJEU also ruled on 17 October 2018 in the
exceeds EUR 17,500 per transaction. In order to apply Volkswagen case. In this case the CJEU further delves
this general reverse charge mechanism, an EU Member into the deductibility of VAT on mixed costs in case
State needs to meet strict conditions, such as having a a company makes VAT taxed as well as VAT exempt
minimum VAT gap between the VAT received and what supplies. The CJEU rules that a company with both VAT
should have been received, caused for at least 25% by taxed and VAT exempt activities does not necessarily lose
carousel fraud and needing an authorisation from the its deduction of VAT on mixed costs (such as costs of
European Council. It is not expected that the Netherlands, administration, audit and general advice), if these costs
Belgium and Luxembourg will qualify for this and, even are solely included in the price of its VAT exempt activities.
if so, would request this special scheme. Nevertheless, The mixed costs in cases like Volkswagen in which the
EU Member States can request the application of this supply of goods is VAT taxed and the providing of a
scheme as of the 20th day after the publication of the loan regarding that supply is VAT exempt, can still be a
amendment to the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC in the component of the price of the taxed supply and therefore
Official Journal of the European Union. The scheme is still be eligible for VAT deduction. This decision can be
temporary and ends on 1st July 2022. significant for companies in a great variety of sectors and
has to be interpreted on a case by case basis.
CJEU confirms deduction of VAT on acquisition
costs of an active holding company CJEU: VAT on share disposal costs recoverable in
On 5 July 2018, the CJEU delivered its decision in certain cases
the Marle Participations case (C-320/17). The Marle On 8 November 2018, the CJEU ruled in the C&D Foods-
Participations case is about deduction of VAT on case. This case is again about VAT on costs related to
costs incurred in connection with the acquisition the sale of shares. It concerned an intended sale of a
of shareholdings in subsidiaries. The CJEU ruled subsidiary which never materialised. Nevertheless, C&D
that deduction of input VAT in connection with the Foods as intended seller sought for the deduction of
acquisition of a subsidiary is allowed simply if the holding input VAT on costs related to the whole process. The
company provides any type of VAT taxed services to CJEU ruled that the sale of shares in principle does not
its subsidiaries, such as in this case, the letting of a lead to the right to deduct input VAT on costs incurred
building. According to the CJEU, such holding company in connection therewith, as such sale is not a VAT taxed
is deemed to be involved in the management of its activity. This could, according to the CJEU, be different
subsidiaries and is therefore eligible for the right to deduct if (i) the direct and exclusive reason for the sale of shares
input VAT. For more information, see our Tax Flash of lies in the VAT taxed activities of the seller, or (ii) that
6 July 2018. sale constitutes the direct, permanent and necessary
extension of the VAT taxed activities of the seller. The
CJEU: VAT on abort costs deductible CJEU further ruled that the latter is the case where the
On 17 October 2018, the CJEU gave its ruling in the sale is carried out with a view to allocating the proceeds
Ryanair case about the right to deduct input VAT on costs directly to the VAT taxed activities of the seller or to the
in case of an unsuccessful takeover bid. The CJEU rules VAT taxed activities carried out by the group of which
that the input VAT should be fully deductible, even though the seller is the parent company. C&D Foods did not
< back to indexpage12
meet that requirement as it intended to use the proceeds
from the sale to satisfy the debt owed to the ultimate
shareholder. As a consequence, C&D Foods was not
entitled to a refund of the VAT on the costs related to
the intended sale. Nevertheless, this case could provide
strong arguments to claim the right to deduct input
VAT on costs related to the sale of shares within the
framework of – for example – corporate restructurings
and potentially also termination of activities. For further
information, see our Tax Flash of 9 November 2018.
< back to indexpageYear-end tax bulletin 2018 15
Developments in the Netherlands
Main changes in Dutch tax in more detail
Multilateral Instrument
The ratification bill with regard to the Multilateral
Instrument (“MLI”) was submitted on 20 December 2017
and is currently pending before the Dutch Parliament.
Considering the progress of the parliamentary approval
procedure, the Dutch government currently expects entry
into effect of the MLI for the Netherlands as of 1 January
Marcel Buur 2020 at the earliest. Based on the (provisional) choices
T +31 10 224 65 07 of the Netherlands and its treaty partners, it is expected
E marcel.buur@loyensloeff.com that 51 of the Dutch tax treaties will be affected by the
MLI (out of 82 tax treaties notified by the Netherlands).
“For MNEs the investment climate in the With regard to the content of the MLI, in principle the
Netherlands is very important. It is certain now Netherlands accepts all MLI provisions, making only a
that the dividend withholding tax will not be limited number of reservations of a technical nature.
abolished in the Netherlands. The proceeds hereof
will be used to make the investment climate more
attractive. So, for example, the corporate income Taxation of the digital economy
tax rate will be reduced to 20.5% in 2021 and
the fiscal unity emergency repair rules will have Issues involving the taxation of tech companies have
retroactive effect to only 1 January 2018 instead remained in the political spotlight in the Netherlands
of 25 October 2017. during 2018. The landscape has been diffuse, though.
Voices have been raised in Parliament that the existing
MNEs should prepare themselves and be aware tax framework inadequately deals with the challenges
of the consequences the fiscal unity repair rules arising from digitalisation. Parliament nevertheless
together with the introduction of the earnings has also formally issued an objection to the European
stripping rule and CFC rules as of 1 January 2019 Commission’s Digital Tax Package proposals. The Dutch
will have. Our team of trusted advisers is fully up government underpins the necessity to properly address
to speed with the latest developments and ready BEPS issues, while preserving the attractiveness of the
to assist you with pragmatic, to the point advice.” investment climate. Challenges raised by digitalisation go
beyond mere BEPS issues and also involve a discussion
on whether the corporate tax base amongst countries
should be redistributed. The Dutch government takes the
position that measures in this respect should preferably
be taken at a global, i.e., OECD, level rather than at
a regional or country level. No strong political stand
has been taken, however, against the Commission’s
proposals. That said, as to the digital services tax
proposal the Dutch government has taken the position
in Council deliberations that the measure should be
< back to indexpage16
accompanied by a sunset clause limiting the horizon of The Question and Answer decree FATCA/CRS contains,
any such taxes. The position is backed by a vast majority amongst other things, a very welcome explanation
of fellow EU Member States. The government has also of the conditions under which a holding company
taken the position that the Member States should be within a non-financial group can be considered to be
granted a 4-year phase-in period to cater for a proper an active Non-Financial Entity (“NFE”). Contrary to a
transposition and effectuation of such a newly devised passive NFE, an active NFE does not have to identify
tax. The Dutch government accordingly seems to be and submit information about its controlling persons for
anticipating that a solution will be reached at a global level CRS purposes. The Dutch government has stated that
beforehand. there is no minimum shareholding required to qualify as
subsidiary. Consequently, as long as more than 80%
of the activities of the entity consists of holding stock
Transparency of or providing financing and services to one or more
subsidiaries that engage in trade or businesses, the
Ultimate beneficial owner register holding company qualifies as an active NFE. An important
Although AMLD 4 required implementation of the UBO exception to this rule applies if the entity functions as
register by 25 June 2017, the implementation process an investment fund or as any investment vehicle whose
in the Netherlands has not yet been completed. On purposes is to acquire or fund companies and then
31 March 2017 the Netherlands published a draft hold interests in those companies as capital assets for
legislative proposal for the implementation of the ultimate investment purposes.
beneficial owner register (“UBO-register”) and launched
an online public consultation, providing anyone interested
with the opportunity to comment on the draft proposal. Implementation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance
In addition, the Netherlands published decrees that, Directive
for purposes of the overall implementation of AMLD4,
include the Dutch UBO definition for various types of On Budget Day 2018, a proposal implementing the EU
Dutch legal entities. The final legislative proposal for the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (“ATAD”), see page 7, was
implementation of the UBO register has not been sent to published. New rules were proposed on the deductibility
Parliament yet. Due to the entry into force of AMLD 5, the of interest (“earnings stripping rule”) and on taxation
government anticipates a final legislative proposal to be of Controlled Foreign Companies (“CFC rules”). The
sent to Parliament in early 2019. The implementation of proposal also includes minor adjustments to the exit
the UBO register for trusts and similar legal structures will taxation rules for companies. These provisions should
be done through a separate legislative process. enter into force per 1 January 2019.
Common Reporting Standard Earnings stripping rule
On 23 March 2018, the Netherlands published an In line with the ATAD, the Netherlands will introduce an
amendment to the guidelines on the United States earnings stripping rule. The proposal does not distinguish
Foreign Account Taxpayer Compliance Act and the between third-party and related-party interest. The
Common Reporting Standard (“FATCA/CRS”) as well as earnings stripping rule needs to be applied per taxpayer,
an addition to the Question and Answer decree FATCA/ irrespective whether a taxpayer forms part of a corporate
CRS. The most important amendment in the FATCA/CRS group. A fiscal unity is considered a single taxpayer.
guidelines relates to the list of excluded accounts for CRS The deduction of net interest expenses is limited to the
purposes. The excluded accounts are not considered to highest of:
be financial accounts and as a result financial institutions
do not have to report in relation to such accounts and i. 30% of the earnings before interest, taxes,
their holders. The OECD Global Forum on Transparency depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA); and
and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes has ii. A threshold of EUR 1 million.
reviewed the Dutch proposed list and the list is now
considered to be final.
< back to indexpageYear-end tax bulletin 2018 17
The net interest expenses are defined as the balance of Vanuatu and the United Arab Emirates, but was based
a taxpayer’s interest expenses, including certain related on the preliminary proposal to use a tax rate of less than
costs and foreign exchange losses, on the one hand, and 7% instead of 9%. Using a tax rate of 9% as a threshold,
a taxpayer’s interest income, including foreign exchange also Turkmenistan likely needs to be added to the list.
gains, on the other hand. EBITDA is calculated on the Switzerland with a federal tax rate of 8.5% should likely
basis of tax accounts and excludes tax exempt income. not appear on the list because also cantonal taxes need
Any excess net interest expenses can be carried forward to be taken into account leading to a tax rate of at least
indefinitely. The proposal includes measures that may limit 9%. EU blacklisted jurisdictions are currently American
the carry forward in case of a change of control. Samoa, Guam, Namibia, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago
and the US Virgin Islands.
The proposal does not provide for a group escape rule
or general grandfathering rules for existing loans. Only for Control is defined as a direct or indirect interest of more
certain on 25 October 2018 existing public infrastructure than 50% in nominal capital, voting rights or entitlement
projects, a grandfathering rule applies. Such projects to profits, alone or together with related persons.
need to be appointed in a ministerial decree to be able to A company that mainly earns non-tainted income or
make use of this grandfathering rule. a company qualifying as a certain financial institution
receiving mainly income from third parties is not a
No exception is made for banks and insurance controlled company.
companies. The Dutch government intends to introduce
a thin capitalisation rule that will apply to banks and Tainted income (including interest, royalties, dividends
insurance companies as of 1 January 2020. The related and leasing income) of a controlled company which is
proposal of law can be expected in 2019. not distributed before year-end, is attributed to the Dutch
controlling company on a pro rata basis.
In connection with the implementation of the earnings
stripping rule the interest deduction limitation rules Finally, tainted income of a controlled company is
for participation debt (article 13l CITA) as well as for not attributed to the Dutch controlling company if the
acquisition holding debt (article 15ad CITA) will be controlled company performs a genuine economic
abolished per 1 January 2019. activity. A controlled company will in any case meet
the genuine economic activity threshold when it meets
CFC rules the Dutch minimum substance requirements and the
The Ministry of Finance takes the position that the Dutch so-called own office plus EUR 100k annual salary
arm’s-length principle already provides for a sufficient requirement.
implementation of the ATAD Model B Controlled Foreign
Company (“CFC”) rules. Based on this principle, the The proposal includes provisions aimed at preventing
income of a controlled company should already be double taxation (upon attribution and distribution or upon
attributed to the Dutch controlling company to the extent revaluation pursuant to existing anti-abuse rules for low-
this income is generated by significant people functions taxed passive portfolio subsidiaries). The proposal does
performed in the Netherlands, which is indeed what is not contain measures preventing double taxation due to
required under that Model B. the application of CFC rules by other jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, it is proposed introducing a light version Hybrid mismatches
of the ATAD Model A CFC regime specifically geared On 29 October 2018, the Dutch government published
towards controlled companies in jurisdictions with a a preliminary proposal implementing rules on hybrid
statutory profit tax rate of less than 9% or in jurisdictions mismatches as required under the amended EU Anti-
that are EU blacklisted. A preliminary list of low-tax rate Tax Avoidance Directive. This proposal is published
jurisdictions published by the Ministry of Finance includes for consultation purposes and is open for consultation
Anguilla, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, the British until 10 December 2018. These ATAD rules should be
Virgin Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, the implemented by the Member States on 31 December
Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Palau (will be removed from list 2019, albeit that the rule targeting reverse hybrid entities
according to later statements of the Ministry of Finance), (see below) may be implemented later, but at the latest on
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Turks and Caicos Islands, 31 December 2021.
< back to indexpage18
The proposal in essence contains three types of rules: - Limitation of loss carry forward from nine years to six
years for losses incurred as from 2019. For losses
- Denial of deduction: deduction of payments by a incurred before 2019, the loss carry forward period
Dutch corporate taxpayer will be denied in case the remains nine years.
payment is not regarded taxable income in the state - Abolishment of the restriction of compensation of
of a recipient as a result of a hybrid mismatch or in holding and financing losses incurred as from 2019.
case payments can be deducted twice as a result of For holding and financing losses incurred before
such hybrid mismatch. 2019, this loss compensation restriction will continue
- Inclusion in income: it will be required to include in to apply, together with the loss carry forward period of
the taxable income of a Dutch corporate taxpayer the nine years.
payments to such taxpayer, which would normally be - Abolishment of interest deduction on additional tier
exempt from Dutch corporate income tax or would 1 capital for banks and insurance companies.
not be recognized as income, but nevertheless can - Limitation of depreciation on buildings used within
be deducted in the state of the payer due to a hybrid the group. A transitional measure will apply for
mismatch. investments in real estate used for the first time
- Taxation of reverse hybrid entities: reverse hybrid before 1 January 2019. Such investments can be
entities (transparent for Dutch tax law purposes but depreciated according to the rules applying until
opaque for tax purposes in the residency states of the 1 January 2019 during the three full book years
participants in the entity) will be regarded as Dutch following the date of first use.
corporate taxpayers in case they are incorporated,
established or registered in the Netherlands. The originally proposed abolishment of the 0% rate for
special investment funds in relation to direct investments
Amongst others hybrid financial instruments, hybrid in Dutch real estate was repealed in the context of the
entities, hybrid permanent establishments and dual non-abolishment of the dividend withholding tax (see
resident entities can constitute a hybrid mismatch. In page 20).
principle only hybrid mismatches between related entities
are covered by the proposal, unless there is a structured
arrangement. Fiscal unity
It is proposed to apply the first two types of rules as from CJEU confirmed the infringement of Dutch fiscal
1 January 2020 and the rule on reverse hybrid entities as unity regime with EU law
from 1 January 2022, both in accordance with ATAD. On 22 February 2018, the Court of Justice of the
European Union (“CJEU”) issued its decision in the joined
All structures in which a Dutch entity is directly or indirectly Dutch cases X NV and N BV. In its decision, the CJEU
involved in a hybrid mismatch need to be reviewed. stated that the “per-element approach” as introduced in
the CJEU Groupe Steria case also applies to the Dutch
consolidation (fiscal unity) regime.
Other relevant proposed corporate income
tax changes The X NV and N BV cases concerned:
In addition to the proposals for implementation of ATAD i. The interest deduction limitation rule to prevent
(see page 16 and following ), the following changes to base erosion (article 10a Corporate Income Tax Act
corporate income tax were proposed in 2018 on and after (“CITA”)); and
Budget Day (entering into force on 1 January 2019 unless ii. The (non-)deductibility of currency losses incurred on
indicated otherwise): an EU participation (non-Dutch).
- Reduction of the main corporate income tax rate With respect to article 10a CITA, the CJEU ruled that the
in two steps to 20.5% in 2021. In 2019 the rate Dutch tax consolidation regime infringes EU law insofar
will remain 25%. In 2020 the rate will be lowered to as this interest deduction applies to a Dutch taxpayer
22.55%, followed by a further rate reduction to 20.5% in relation to a EU subsidiary, while the application of
in 2021. this provision can be avoided in a domestic situation
< back to indexpageYear-end tax bulletin 2018 19
by including that respective subsidiary in a fiscal unity. October 2017, 11:00 AM to 1 January 2018. The letter of
According to the CJEU, this discriminatory treatment by amendment thereto was sent to Dutch Parliament on 26
the Netherlands cannot be justified. October 2018.
With respect to the non-deductibility of currency losses, The following provisions are included in the emergency
the CJEU ruled that this does not entail an infringement of repair measures:
EU law. According to the CJEU, the Netherlands applies
a coherent system in the treatment of currency results i. The interest deduction limitation rule to prevent base
for corporate income tax purposes. Under Dutch tax law, erosion (article 10a CITA);
both currency losses and currency profits are not taken ii. The Dutch participation exemption for low-taxed
into account, regardless of whether a taxpayer is included portfolio investment subsidiaries (article 13,
in a fiscal unity. paragraphs 9 to 15 CITA);
iii. The anti-hybrid rule in the Dutch participation
In response to the decision of the CJEU, the Dutch exemption (article 13, paragraph 17 CITA);
State Secretary of Finance confirmed that the so-called iv. The revaluation provision for low-taxed portfolio
“emergency repair measures” that were announced on 25 investment subsidiaries (article 13a CITA);
October 2017 will become new legislation (see below). For v. The interest deduction limitation against excessive
more information, see our Tax Flash of 22 February 2018. participation interest (article 13l CITA);
vi. The provision regarding carry-forward losses and a
Dutch Supreme Court confirms decision of the change in ultimate interest in a taxpayer (article 20a
CJEU CITA); and
Recently, on 19 October 2018, the Supreme Court vii. The redistribution facility (article 11, paragraph 4
rendered its judgement in the X NV and N BV cases in DWTA).
which it confirmed the judgement of the CJEU of 22
February 2018. According to the Supreme Court the “per- The retroactive effect until 1 January 2018 does not apply
element approach” applies to the Dutch fiscal unity regime. to article 13a CITA. This emergency repair measure will
enter into force on 1 January 2019. In the explanatory
For more information, see our Tax Flash of 19 October notes to the legislative proposal of the earnings stripping
2018. rule that will be included in Dutch tax law on 1 January
2019 (see page 16), the Dutch State Secretary of
Emergency repair measures in the fiscal unity Finance confirmed that this rule will not be included in the
regime emergency repair measures.
On 6 June 2018, the Dutch Ministry of Finance published
a legislative proposal to amend the Dutch corporate Due to the emergency repair measures, several benefits
income tax fiscal unity regime by implementing so- of the current Dutch fiscal unity regime will no longer be
called “emergency repair measures”. This legislative available to taxpayers. This could have a severe impact
proposal follows from the decision of the CJEU of 22 on the tax position of taxpayers that are currently applying
February 2018 (see above). Based on the legislative this regime.
proposal, several provisions of the CITA and the Dividend
Withholding Tax Act (“DWTA”) must be applied on a On 2 November 2018, the Dutch government published
stand-alone basis, as if the Dutch fiscal unity regime does additional explanations regarding the legislative proposal
not apply. The legislative proposal will enter into force with to implement the emergency repair measures in Dutch tax
retroactive effect as from 25 October 2017, 11:00 AM, law. The additional measures give new insights on how
the date on which the repair measures were announced the emergency repair measures should be applied and
for the first time following the opinion of the Advocate are therefore of great importance to determine the impact
General of the CJEU in the above cases. For more of these measures for existing fiscal unities.
information, see our Tax Flash of 6 June 2018.
We expect the parliamentary process regarding the
To improve the Dutch investment climate, the Dutch legislative proposal to be finalized in the first quarter of
State Secretary of Finance confirmed that the retroactive 2019.
effect of the repair measures will be shortened from 25
< back to indexpage20
For more information, see our Tax Flash of 5 November in relation to its intermediary holding functions, and the
2018. requirement that the holding company has (for at least 24
months) own office space at its disposal which is in fact
Finally, the decisions referred to above, mean the end of used to carry out its intermediary holding functions. More
the current Dutch fiscal unity regime. This regime will be detailed information can be found in our Tax Flash of 19
replaced by new group regime. This may take some time September 2017. Following the judgement of the CJEU in
and such a group regime is not expected to enter into the Deister Holding and Juhler Holding cases, the Dutch
force before 2023. government has expressed its intention to also allow
(potential) taxpayers to demonstrate in another manner
that valid business reasons reflecting economic reality are
Withholding taxes present (for instance, in joint venture situations), whereby
all facts and circumstances of the specific case should
Non-abolishment Dutch dividend withholding tax be taken into account. More detailed information on the
Contrary to earlier intentions and after public debate, Deister Holding and Juhler Holding cases can be found in
the existing dividend withholding tax (“DWT”) will not be our Tax Flash of 20 December 2017).
abolished. For more information, see our Tax Flash of
16 October 2018. The additional possibility to demonstrate valid business
reasons should be available to EU/EEA1-shareholders as
Announced withholding taxes on dividends, interest well as non-EU/EEA-shareholders. The proposed date of
and royalties entry into force is 1 January 2019. However, taxpayers
Further to and in connection with the non-abolishment should also be able to rely hereon for 2018 and possibly
of the Dutch DWT, the earlier proposed new conditional even for earlier years for non-resident CIT purposes.
withholding tax on intragroup dividends to low-taxed
entities and in abusive situations will be reconsidered. The
already announced proposal to introduce a conditional Revision ruling practice
withholding tax on intragroup interest and royalties to low-
taxed entities and in abusive situations is still expected On 22 November 2018, the Dutch government sent a
to come into force as from 1 January 2021. A legislative letter to Parliament with its proposals for revising the
proposal will be published in 2019, at the latest on Dutch ruling policy. As a result of the proposed changes,
Budget Day (17 September 2019). the bar will be raised for concluding a tax ruling of an
international nature. The government aims to have the
For more information, see our Tax Flash of 16 October new ruling policy implemented by 1 July 2019. In brief,
2018. the government proposes:
Changes to Dutch dividend withholding tax - Changes to enhance the transparency of the ruling
exemption policy. One of the changes is that the tax authorities
As from 1 January 2018 changes to the DWT rules will publish an anonymised summary of each ruling of
and the non-resident corporate income tax (“CIT”) rules an international nature they will issue.
for substantial shareholdings entered into force. In - Changes to improve the process and coordination for
structures where a business enterprise is carried out by concluding tax rulings.
an indirect shareholder, valid business reasons reflecting - Additional requirements taxpayers should meet
economic reality (relevant for the DWT exemption and to conclude a tax ruling of an international nature.
non-resident CIT liability) are considered present if a Taxpayers can only conclude such a ruling if the group
foreign intermediate holding company has “relevant to which they belong has sufficient “economic nexus”
substance”. In addition to the Dutch “minimum substance with the Netherlands. In addition, rulings will not be
requirements”, this includes the requirement that the issued if the main motive of the taxpayer is to save
holding company incurs salary costs of at least € 100,000 (Dutch or foreign) taxes and/or if one of the entities
1 EAA is European Economic Area and includes the EU countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
< back to indexpageYear-end tax bulletin 2018 21
involved in the transaction is resident in a country on New rules for VAT treatment of vouchers
the EU blacklist of non-cooperative countries or in a As of 1 January 2019, the new VAT rules for vouchers,
low-tax jurisdiction. It is not yet clear when a group is approved in early 2018, will come into force and will apply
considered to have sufficient “economic nexus” with to vouchers that are issued after 31 December 2018.
the Netherlands or when the main motive of a ruling is In this respect, vouchers are defined as instruments
considered to save (Dutch or foreign) taxes; and that can serve as (partial) consideration for goods and
- Changes in the period during which tax rulings will services. Among vouchers are also codes which can be
apply. Rulings of an international nature in general will “redeemed” in an online shop as consideration for goods
be concluded for a period of 5 years; in exceptional or services. The proposal makes a distinction between
situations this can be extended to 10 years. Moreover, vouchers for single use (single purpose vouchers (“SPVs”))
all such rulings will be concluded in a standard form. and vouchers for multiple use (multipurpose vouchers
(“MPVs”)). The issuance of an SPV for remuneration is
It is important to note that the scope of several of the treated as if the goods or services are supplied at that
proposed measures is not yet clear. More guidance will moment and therefore VAT taxed. The later handing
be provided in policy guidelines yet to be published, and over of the SPV for a supply of goods or services is not
– on an ongoing basis – by way of examples. considered a VAT taxed supply. Conversely, the issuance
of an MPV for remuneration is not VAT taxed. The later
supply of goods or services in exchange for the MPV,
Changes in tax treaties however, is a VAT taxed supply. The VAT taxable amount
in that case is the amount paid by the consumer for
Only a few changes occurred in the Dutch tax treaty the voucher or, in case higher, the amount the voucher
network during 2018: represents (nominal value) minus VAT.
- Tax treaty with Algeria was signed by the Netherlands Extension of VAT sport exemption as of 2019
on 9 May 2018, not yet entered into force; In the 2019 Dutch Budget it is proposed to bring the VAT
- Protocol to the Dutch-Denmark tax treaty was signed exemption for sport activities in line with the exemption as
by the Netherlands on 9 May 2018, not yet entered provided in the EU VAT Directive. Currently, the exemption
into force; does not apply to the exploitation of sport facilities and to
- Protocol to the Dutch-Ukraine tax treaty was signed sport services rendered by sports clubs to non-members.
by the Netherlands on 12 March 2018, not yet Based on CJEU case law (Bridport and West Dorset
entered into force; Golf Club, C- 495/12), the Ministry of Finance was of
- Tax treaty with Zambia (signed by the Netherlands on the opinion that the current Dutch interpretation of the
15 July 2015) entered into force on 31 March 2018. exemption was too narrow compared to what the EU
VAT Directive 2006/112/EC rules. It is now proposed
extending the VAT exemption to the exploitation of sport
VAT facilities as well as to services rendered by sports clubs to
non-members.
Increasing reduced the VAT rate from 6% to 9% as
of 2019 Modernising VAT scheme for small entrepreneurs
It is proposed that the reduced VAT rate, currently 6%, The VAT scheme for small entrepreneurs is proposed to
increases to 9% as of 1 January 2019. The reduced VAT be modernised as of 1 January 2020. When applying the
rate applies, for example, to supplies of food, medicines, scheme, the entrepreneurs are relieved from filing VAT
labour-intensive services, cultural services, hotel services returns, do not have to issue invoices and do not have
and books. For supplies that take place on 1 January to charge VAT. The most important two elements of the
2019 or later but which are paid for before that date, the changes to the scheme are that the scheme will also be
6% rate remains the applicable rate and no extra 3% will open to legal entities and that the scheme is no longer
be levied in 2019. The latter applies provided that it is based on the VAT payable on balance but on the yearly
entirely clear and determined before 1 January 2019 what turnover. The threshold under which a VAT taxable person
actually will be supplied on or after 1 January 2019. can use the scheme is EUR 20,000 (exclusive of VAT) of
turnover on an annual basis.
< back to indexpageYou can also read
