In Kaplan International Colleges (Case C-77/19) (23 April) and in response to a referral from the UK FTT Advocate General (AG) Kokott opined that: the exemption in article 132(1)(f) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD) does not extend to a group which is established in a third state. The exemption should be interpreted so that the exemption of services supplied by a group to its members in return for exact reimbursement of their share of the expenses does not in principle cause distortion of competition unless it is applied inappropriately. The fact that some members of the cost sharing group are also part of a VAT group does not prevent the exemption from applying but the more extensive group taxation on the basis of article 11 of the PVD prevails. The exemption does not therefore apply where all the members of...
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 Kaplan International Colleges (Case C-77/19) (23 April) and in response to a referral from the UK FTT Advocate General (AG) Kokott opined that: the exemption in article 132(1)(f) of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD) does not extend to a group which is established in a third state. The exemption should be interpreted so that the exemption of services supplied by a group to its members in return for exact reimbursement of their share of the expenses does not in principle cause distortion of competition unless it is applied inappropriately. The fact that some members of the cost sharing group are also part of a VAT group does not prevent the exemption from applying but the more extensive group taxation on the basis of article 11 of the PVD prevails. The exemption does not therefore apply where all the members of...
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:
