In United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited v HMRC (Case C‑235/19) the CJEU has followed the opinion of Advocate General (AG) Pikamäe in rejecting the contention that pension fund management services fell within the scope of the VAT exemption for insurance in article 135(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD).
The decision is the latest (and perhaps the last?) in a long running series of cases dealing with the VAT treatment of pension fund management. On this occasion the CJEU has concluded that there was no basis for treating pension fund management as an insurance transaction for VAT purposes (despite its appearance in certain insurance directives).
It had long been HMRC’s policy to treat supplies of pension fund management by insurers as falling within the insurance exemption contained in article...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In United Biscuits (Pension Trustees) Limited v HMRC (Case C‑235/19) the CJEU has followed the opinion of Advocate General (AG) Pikamäe in rejecting the contention that pension fund management services fell within the scope of the VAT exemption for insurance in article 135(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD).
The decision is the latest (and perhaps the last?) in a long running series of cases dealing with the VAT treatment of pension fund management. On this occasion the CJEU has concluded that there was no basis for treating pension fund management as an insurance transaction for VAT purposes (despite its appearance in certain insurance directives).
It had long been HMRC’s policy to treat supplies of pension fund management by insurers as falling within the insurance exemption contained in article...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes: