As Etienne Wong (Old Square Tax Chambers) observed (Tax Journal 10 July): ‘BlackRock (Case C-231/19) concerns VAT on a single supply of investment management services used to manage both special investment funds (SIFs) and non-SIFs. In that case the CJEU ruled that the potential for dual use meant the exemption for the management of SIFs cannot apply so the supply was standard rated in its entirety. The decision in Luxembourg to the effect that a supply could in principle be exempt only in part was dismissed as irrelevant. The suggestion from BlackRock is that all dual or multi-capable services that may be “used in the same way for the management of special investment funds as for the management of other funds” are by definition excluded from the SIF exemption; however this seems unduly restrictive and no doubt...
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:
As Etienne Wong (Old Square Tax Chambers) observed (Tax Journal 10 July): ‘BlackRock (Case C-231/19) concerns VAT on a single supply of investment management services used to manage both special investment funds (SIFs) and non-SIFs. In that case the CJEU ruled that the potential for dual use meant the exemption for the management of SIFs cannot apply so the supply was standard rated in its entirety. The decision in Luxembourg to the effect that a supply could in principle be exempt only in part was dismissed as irrelevant. The suggestion from BlackRock is that all dual or multi-capable services that may be “used in the same way for the management of special investment funds as for the management of other funds” are by definition excluded from the SIF exemption; however this seems unduly restrictive and no doubt...
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: