August and September have seen limited development from a VAT perspective, though there have been a number of recent tribunal decisions of, which perhaps the most interesting is the Pertemps case. The idea that an employer was providing a service to an employee by offering an alternative remuneration structure may, at first glance seem a little outlandish, but care is needed in distinguishing this situation from that considered by the CJEU in Astra Zeneca. At a European level, the AG’s opinion in joined Hungarian cases may re-open the question whether compound interest should be a necessary part of the compensation due to a taxpayer in relation to VAT levied in breach of EU law, whilst a number of member states are cooperating in trial of cross-border VAT rulings for complex cases.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
August and September have seen limited development from a VAT perspective, though there have been a number of recent tribunal decisions of, which perhaps the most interesting is the Pertemps case. The idea that an employer was providing a service to an employee by offering an alternative remuneration structure may, at first glance seem a little outlandish, but care is needed in distinguishing this situation from that considered by the CJEU in Astra Zeneca. At a European level, the AG’s opinion in joined Hungarian cases may re-open the question whether compound interest should be a necessary part of the compensation due to a taxpayer in relation to VAT levied in breach of EU law, whilst a number of member states are cooperating in trial of cross-border VAT rulings for complex cases.
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content.
.tmb-editorspic.jpg?sfvrsn=df04ab27_1)
