Being a VAT expert, tax-exempt product imports are close to my heart. I recently attended a conference where most of the guests were managers of companies importing products in Hungary and then selling and transporting them after customs clearance to companies in other member states.
On 9 April 2013, the CJEU decided in the Commission vs. Ireland (C-85/11) case that non-taxable persons can be part of a VAT group on the basis that the VAT Directive determines that a fiscal unity can be formed by ‘persons’ and does not prescribe that each member of the fiscal unity must be an entrepreneur or taxable person for VAT purposes.
The banking data of individuals, for instance, will be as easily and quickly accessible for the tax authority as the data of property or vehicle registers.
In 2012, HUF 57 billion, slightly less than the targeted HUF 60 billion, was collected from product charge. The revenue target was not reduced for 2013 either, we can therefore assume that the tax authority will use every effort to meet the target.
Accordingly, until 14 February 2013, returns, payments, supplementary filings and self-revisions relating to the environmental product charge will have to be submitted to the Customs Authority while after this date, these will have to be filed with NAV.
Law Decree 16/2012 has modified Art. 164 of the Italian income and corporation tax act (TUIR) which governs the deductibility of the cost relating to private and commercial vehicles. The mentioned law change reduced the percentage of the deductibility of costs related to private cars assigned and not assigned to employees. Relevant cases:
Guideline 3004/2013 already available (only in Hungarian language) on the website of the Hungarian Tax and Customs Authority (NAV) includes the criteria to be inspected, the audit aspects and the sanctions to be applied on a standard basis during the tax audits of enterprises having only VAT registrations in Hungary.
There are many formal requirements applicable to such agreements in German company law. Until now a significant risk existed that if all the profit (or loss) was not transferred to the parent entity, e.g. due to errors in the annual accounts of the subsidiary, the tax authorities regarded the agreement as not executed.
The courts found in the Felixstowe Dock and FCE Bank cases that denying the group relief between two UK resident companies was not in line with the Tax Treaty non-discrimination provision where the UK companies were held through a non-UK parent. Both cases concerned group relief between UK companies – cross border group relief was not claimed.