VAT Newsletter. Content. Hot topics and issues in indirect taxation. January/February 2017

Transcription

1 VAT Newsletter Hot topics and issues in indirect taxation January/February 2017 NEWS FROM THE CJEU Correction of input tax deduction even without repayment of the prepayment? Ruling of 21 September 2016, V R 29/15 (case C-660/16 Kollroß) and XI R 44/14 (case C- 661/16 Wirtl) The German practice in relation to correction of input tax where the input supply is not actually performed is being reviewed. Until now, a correction of the input tax has presupposed that the prepayment will have been repaid. The German Federal Tax Court s (BFH) two VAT senates have now delivered two preliminary rulings and by so doing raised several questions for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to consider. The cases In both cases in dispute, businesses made prepayments when ordering the delivery of cogeneration units. They claimed input tax deduction on the advance payment invoices, which were properly issued. Due to fraud, though, the cogeneration plants were never actually delivered, and the businesses did not receive back the money they had paid. Rulings The question raised by the BFH for the CJEU to consider is whether the input tax deduction from an advance payment invoice is ruled out if the actual supply of the service is uncertain (see CJEU ruling of 13 March 2014 case C-107/13 FIRIN OOD; VAT Newsletter April 2014). In this regard, the CJEU is to be asked to state whether the certainty of the service's being supplied is to be assessed on the basis of the objective facts or of the objectified point of view of the person making the advance payment. Were the latter the case, input tax deduction would be possible, since the businesses in this instance did not recognise the intention of the issuers of the invoice to defraud them, nor ought they to have done so. If, however, the issue is to be decided by reference to the objective facts, input tax ought to be disallowed on the grounds that there was from the very outset no prospect of the power plants actually being delivered. Insofar as the original advance payment invoice can be said to confer a right to deduct input tax, the question arises, however, whether the input tax might Content News from the CJEU Correction of input tax deduction even without repayment of the pre-payment? News from the BFH Now the BFH agrees: invoices can be corrected with retrospective effect 14c UStG: Correction of invoices without retrospective effect Supplies through German consignment stock are not always subject to registration duty Right to play golf in Germany and abroad - Which country has the right of taxation? In brief Scrapping of vehicle may be worthwhile in terms of VAT Organizational integration into the VAT group VAT exempt assumption of liabilities Obligation of the business minimum usage partly violates the Union law Extended review of sale and lease back businesses Environmental bonus and commercial leasing VAT taxation of the public sector Upcoming Events VAT 2017 Current Developments and Hot Topics

2 VAT Newsletter 2 need to be corrected later on. The reason for this is the general rule that the input tax is to be corrected where payment was made for a supply, but the supply was not actually performed, as in the cases in dispute ( 17 (2) no. 2 of the German VAT Law (UStG)). But, the correction is made taking into account the present BFH's rulings not before the accounting period in which the advance payment was reimbursed (BFH, ruling of 2 September 2010, V R 34/09, and of 15 September 2011, V R 36/09). The BFH therefore puts to the CJEU the question as to whether, under EU law, a correction of an input tax deduction has to be made even where an advance payment is not repaid, or whether provisions to another effect can be enacted in national law. In view of the possibility of correction of input tax being necessary in a particular case, the BFH asks the CJEU whether the tax office dealing with the person/entity making the advance payment is required to reimburse him/it the VAT if the advance payment cannot be repaid by the other contracting party. If repayment is a matter of obligation, the question arises as to whether it has to be made at the time tax is assessed or in separate proceedings initiated on equitable grounds. The CJEU, in its ruling of 15 March 2007 case C-35/05 Reemtsma, denied a general reimbursement obligation of the tax office if the recipient of a service was unable to deduct wrongly charged VAT as input tax. This was not, however, the case where repayment of VAT by the supplier was made impossible or unreasonably difficult, as in the event of insolvency in particular. It was then incumbent on the Member States to ensure the recipient of a supply can address its application for a refund directly to the tax authorities. The Lower Tax Court of Berlin- Brandenburg, in its ruling of 17 August 2016, 7 K 7246/14 (BFH ref no.: V R 50/16), took the view that the principles set out in the CJEU's Reemtsma ruling become applicable only if a supply was actually performed. The Fifth Senate of the BFH, commenting on this submission to the CJEU, said that, in this case, the principles of the CJEU's Reemtsma ruling could be applicable if the supply of the service was uncertain and VAT had been wrongly charged on an advance payment invoice. Insolvency proceedings was commenced in respect of the assets of the issuer of the invoice in this dispute, but discontinued for lack of assets. NEWS FROM THE BFH Now the BFH agrees: invoices can be corrected with retrospective effect BFH, ruling of 20 October 2016, V R 26/15 This ruling from the BFH takes account of the principles set out in the CJEU ruling of 15 September 2016 case C- 518/14 Senatex (VAT Newsletter August/September 2016) on retrospective invoice correction and adapts them more precisely to the state of German law. The case Following an audit, the tax office issued a dental laboratory with amended VAT decisions for the years 2005 to These did not take into account input tax from invoices issued by a lawyer and a management consultancy. It was asserted that the nature of the service supplied had not been specified with sufficient precision in the invoices. The decisions were contested, but it was for this reason that they were upheld. The dental laboratory appealed the decisions in 2011 and, in January 2013, in the course of the proceedings, presented the tax office with invoices in which the services supplied were properly described. The Lower Tax Court dismissed the claim. In so doing, it stated that the correction might have taken retrospective effect if the corrected invoices had been submitted after the original decision had been upheld. Ruling The BFH found that the appeal had merit. Where an incorrectly issued invoice is later corrected under 31 (5) of the German VAT Operating Regulation (UStDV), the right to deduct input tax on the basis of the corrected invoice can be exercised for the accounting period in which the invoice was originally issued. The BFH's abandonment of its earlier finding that input tax from a corrected invoice could be deducted only in the accounting period in which the correction was made (BFH, ruling of 24 August 2006, V R 16/05) is a consequence of the CJEU's Senatex ruling. Possession of the invoice is no more than the material precondition for the exercise of the right to deduct input tax. The invoices issued in the years to which the dispute relates were capable of correction under 31 (5) UStDV. A document is an

3 VAT Newsletter 3 invoice and hence capable of being corrected if it contains details of its issuer, of the recipient of the supply performed, a description of the supply performed, details of the payment to be made and separate details of the VAT payable. It is, then, sufficient that it should contain these details, and that these details are not so vague, incomplete or manifestly inaccurate that they are virtually absent. The invoices were also actually corrected. As corrected, the invoices met the requirements of the law and so made it possible for the right to deduction of input tax to be exercised for the years to which the dispute related. The invoices had in fact been corrected in due time. For the right to deduct input tax to be exercised, it is sufficient that the issuer should correct the invoice before the end of the last oral hearing before the tax court. In its Senatex ruling, the CJEU had left open the question as to the period during which an invoice could be corrected. The BFH left open the question as to whether, in individual cases, the principles of the CJEU ruling of 15 September 2016 case C-516/14 Barlis 06 (see VAT Newsletter August/September 2016) mean that a correction of an invoice can be dispensed with when exercising the right to input tax deduction. Given that the business in the case in dispute had recourse to a remedy (appeal, claim) against the refusal of input tax deduction, there is no doubt that the refusal had not yet taken effect and that the correction of the invoice could have retrospective effect until the last oral proceedings before the tax court had come to an end. The retrospective amendment of the tax decisions also resulted in the interest on back payments being suspended ( 233a of the German Tax Code (AO)). The BFH did not, then, have to decide whether the correction of the invoice could be a retroactive act within the meaning of 233a (2a) and (7) in conjunction with 175 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 AO. The same would have applied if a correction provision other than 175 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 AO had worked in the business's favor. The BFH stresses, however, that, following the CJEU's Senatex ruling, EU law stands in the way of any provision at national level under which interest would become payable on back payments in the event of an invoice being corrected. 14c UStG: Correction of invoices without retrospective effect BFH, ruling of 12 October 2016, XI R 43/14 This ruling by the BFH concerns the correction of an amount of tax shown as too high in the invoice ( 14c (1) UStG) issued by the supplier. The BFH came to the conclusion that the correction could also be made by the making of a declaration of assignment in a notice of assignment. The case A company with its registered office in the UK let, between 2007 and 2009, stand spaces in Germany for the purpose of trade fairs and exhibitions. It had previously rented the stand spaces from the promoters. The customers were firms based in Germany. The UK company clearly charged German VAT in its invoices to customers. In 2011, while processing the VAT return for 2009, the tax office found that the customers were liable for tax under 13b UStG (the "reverse charge procedure ). It also took it as read that the UK company had charged VAT wrongly and so nevertheless still owed it under 14c (1) UStG. The company then, in its VAT return for 2012, claimed that it no longer owed the VAT, as it had now corrected the invoices to no longer charge VAT. The tax office declined to recognize this, arguing that it had not been demonstrated that the corrections had actually been notified to the service recipients in The issue in dispute in relation to one service recipient was whether, and if so to what extent, a correction might alternatively be made by means of a declaration of assignment in a notice of assignment. Ruling Even though the service recipient owed tax under 13b UStG, the BFH initially agreed that the business supplying it might issue an invoice including VAT. Rather than this being an unjustified tax charge under 14c (2) UStG, the BFH saw 14c (1) UStG as being applicable. On this basis, the supplier is required to correct the amount of tax and notify the recipient of it. The only precondition for this is that a sufficiently exact correction of the invoice be supplied in writing to the recipient (BFH, ruling of 11 October 2007, V R 27/05). Likewise, a declaration of assignment by the supplying business in a notice of assignment sent to the tax office can, on this basis, be seen as a correction of the amount of tax

4 VAT Newsletter 4 within the meaning of 14c (1) sent. 2 UStG. What is required is that the recipient should actually receive the declaration of assignment; the declaration of assignment should specifically and unambiguously relate to one (or more) original invoice(s), and it should be clear from the declaration of assignment that the supplying business will from now on invoice its services without VAT instead of as formerly quoting the original amount of tax. The BFH affirmed that this applies in this case. The BFH also stated that a corrected invoice where 14c UStG applies cannot be seen as having retroactive effect as of the date on which the original invoice was issued. The CJEU ruling of 15 September 2016 case C-518/14 Senatex (see VAT Newsletter August/September 2016 and the earlier report in this Newsletter) does not stand in the way. In this ruling, the BFH explicitly leaves open the question as to whether, in the situation referred to in 14c (1) UStG (excessive tax charge), which refers to 17 UStG, a correction, in order to be effective, presupposes not only the correction of the invoice, but also the repayment of the VAT to the service recipient. Where 14c (1) UStG applies, the tax office will insist on repayment insofar as the correction of the invoice confers an entitlement to it on the service recipient (see section 14c.1 (5) of the German VAT Application Decree (UStAE) for an example). By contrast, where 14c (2) UStG (unjustified tax charge) applies, a correction is not meant to be conditional on a repayment to the addressee of the invoice, as is evident from section 14c.2 (3) sentence 6 UStAE. Supplies through German consignment stock are not always subject to registration duty BFH, ruling of 20 October 2016, V R 31/15 Supplies from the EU effected through a consignment stock are not always subject to German VAT. According to the BFH, there is no duty to register the supplies in Germany if it is known already at the beginning of the dispatch from the EU to whom the supplies are bindingly delivered to and if the supply is stored in the consignment stock only for a short period of time. The case A trader supplied goods from Spain via a consignment stock in Germany. Those supplies of goods were based on central supply contracts, which regulated the goods to be supplied, the purchase prices and the payment and delivery terms. The specific amounts of supplies and supply data were only stated in the delivery call-up data, which the customer sent to the trader every day. According to the central supply contracts, only the delivery call-up was legally binding and resulted in a purchase agreement. Via the delivery call-up and a subsequent substantiated detailed call-off, the customer bindingly informed the trader which amounts of goods needed to be delivered on which date. The delivery call-ups always included authorizations for the next twelve weeks and stated the delivery dates for this period scheduled for one- or bi-weekly intervals. The amounts of goods shipped to the consignment stock were equal to the amounts that the customer needed in the upcoming days and weeks. Within the scope of an actual agreement, the trader and the tax authorities assumed that orders made by the customer were binding for 95 percent of the supplies already at the beginning of the shipment in Spain. Nevertheless, the tax authorities assumed that the supplies were subject to VAT in Germany. The objection against this assumption was unsuccessful. However, the Lower Tax Court upheld the action. The BFH found that the appeal lodged by the tax authorities and the cross appeal lodged by the trader were without founding. Ruling With regard to the 95 percent of the supplies, the BFH affirms that the place of supply is not Germany but Spain pursuant to 3 (6) sent. 1 UStG. According to this regulation, the supply is considered to be executed in that location where the transport or dispatch to the purchaser or a third party acting in the purchaser s capacity begins. To define the place of supply, the purchaser needs to be bindingly defined already at the beginning of the transport. The dispatch must lead to the arrival of the supplied item at the purchaser s. Therefore, the dispatch must not be discontinued. On that condition, the supply of goods may also exist if the supplied item is stored in a distribution warehouse for a short period of time after the

5 VAT Newsletter 5 transport was initiated. As a result, the dispatch initiated abroad is not discontinued due to the storage for a short period in order to cover the purchaser s requirement of goods for the production. At least this applies where an unlimited right of access was granted to the purchaser. The present BFH ruling contradicts the previous practice of the tax authorities, which principally assumes a registration duty in Germany. According to the tax authorities, a trader resident in the remaining Community area supplying goods in his consignment stock in Germany is making an intra-community acquisition followed by a supply of goods removed by the customer and subject to VAT. The BFH did not follow this general view. Depending on the agreement and specific execution, a registration may be avoided. In the pending appeal V R 1/16, the BFH has the opportunity to make a differentiation from other situations. The Lower Tax Court in Düsseldorf had affirmed in its ruling of 6 November 2015, 1 K 1983/13 U a domestic supply into a German consignment stock executed by a Dutch trader. In the present case, a binding purchase agreement was only concluded between the contracting parties after the goods were stored and the purchaser was not obliged to buy the goods stored in the consignment stock by the supplier. According to the principles of the present BFH ruling, the ruling of the Lower Tax Court of Düsseldorf could thus be confirmed. Right to play golf in Germany and abroad Which country has the right of taxation? BFH, ruling of 12 October 2016, XI R 5/14 If a golf player is authorized to play on golf courses in Germany and abroad, the question arises as to which country has the right of taxation of turnover. The BFH has commented in its present ruling on this question. The case A trader ran two golf courses in Germany. In addition, he was the sole shareholder of a French corporation (SARL), which also run two golf courses in France. The trader granted a right to use all four golf courses to private golf players who purchased a permission to play. For this permission to play in Germany and abroad, the players paid to the trader an one-time amount and an annual contribution. In the case year, approx. 50 percent of the players holding a permission were playing in France and 50 percent in Germany. The trader applied the German VAT only to 50 percent of the transactions. However, the German tax authorities took the view that the place of supply pursuant to 3a (1) UStG was entirely in Germany, because the trader was operating his business from there. The Finance Court upheld the action. The payment was to be distributed, because the services provided were propertyrelated ( 3a (3) no. 1 UStG). Also, the French tax authorities claimed the VAT to be proportionately paid, because activity-based services were provided (Art. 54 of the VAT Directive, implementation under german law through 3a (3) no. 3 (a) UStG). Ruling The appeal was unfounded. If a trader grants to private golf players a permission to play on several golf courses in Germany and abroad, the place of the supply depends on where the supply is actually provided by the trader pursuant to 3a (3) no. 3 (a) UStG. In the present case, the supplies are therefore subject to VAT partly in Germany and partly abroad and the payments need to be divided. As a result, the BFH indirectly confirms the view of the French tax authorities. Granting permission to play golf on a golf course is not considered by the BFH as other supply in connection with a property within the meaning of 3a (3) no. 1 UStG. Granting a permission to play on a golf course does not have a sufficiently direct connection with a property. The subject of the service is not the property itself. The permission to play does not relate to the availability of a specific property (golf course) or a specific part of it to be used (to be specified by the lessee ), but rather to granting the right to perform a specific sports activity, namely playing golf, with the equipment that is available there. In addition, the BFH commented on the evidence of the status of the recipient of the supply as a trader or private person. Due to the type of the transactions, for the BFH an input supply for the company seems to be ruled out in the present case, as a result of which the regulation of the place of supply pursuant to 3a (2) UStG does not apply. Moreover, the BFH refers to the assumption pursuant to Art. 18 (2) of the Council Implementing Regulation, which is binding in

6 VAT Newsletter 6 all parts and applicable in all Member States. Accordingly, the following applies: Insofar as the provider of the supply of service has no information to the contrary, he may assume that recipient of a supply resident in the Union has the status of a non-taxable person if he proves that the letter has not given him his VAT ID No. IN BRIEF Scrapping of vehicle may be worthwhile in terms of VAT CJEU, ruling of 18 January 2017 case C-471/15 - Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S Within the context of a professional trading of secondhand goods purchased by private persons, not the entire purchase price is subject to VAT but only the margin between purchase and sales price (Art. 313 of the VAT Directive, 25a UStG). The margin scheme is aimed at avoiding double taxation and distortions of competition between companies. According to the CJEU, a vehicle scrapping company may also apply the margin scheme if it does not resell the vehicle purchased from a private person, but only sells individual parts as spare parts in their unaltered state or after they have been repaired. This remains unaffected even if it is difficult in practice to determine the basis of assessment. The ruling affects a referral from Denmark, but also applies to the German legal situation. In the view of the German tax authorities, individual parts taken from a purchased second-hand item should be new parts and therefore not subject to the margin scheme (see Section 25a.1 (4) sent. 5 UStAE). This interpretation is not in line with the Union law. Organizational integration into the VAT group BFH, ruling of 12 October 2016, XI R 30/14 For a VAT group to be assumed, a legal person (dominated company) must be integrated financially, economically and organizationally into the company of the controlling company pursuant to 2 (2) no. 2 sent. 1 UStG. Organizational integration is regularly given if the persons sitting in the management of the controlling company are the same persons sitting in the management of the dominated company. According to the BFH, the organizational integration may also given in exceptional cases if the persons sitting in the management of the controlling companies are not the same as those sitting in the management of the dominated company. This requires institutionally secured, direct opportunities for intervention in the core areas of the ongoing management of the dominated company. However, a merely factual management of the business is not sufficient. The controlling company needs to be able to prove to third parties by way of fixed agreement (e.g. management regulation, corporate directive) that it has a decision-making authority and that it may hold the manager of the dominated liable in case of violation of its orders. This may particularly be the case if in accordance with his/her employment agreement the nominally appointed manager of the dominated company is to follow the orders of the shareholders meeting or an engaged third party that may influence the decision-making of the shareholders meeting and also has the sole power of representation of the controlling company. It remains to be seen whether the German tax authorities will amend Section 2.8 (10) UStAE by this case. VAT exempt assumption of liabilities BFH, ruling of 30 November 2016, V R 18/16 The BFH considers the obligation to enter into a rental agreement in return for payment as a VAT exempt transaction pursuant to 4 no. 8 (g) UStG. In the present case, a KG (German limited partnership) was the owner of a property with a commercial building, which was partly rented out and partly not. The KG intended to sell the property. The prospective purchaser wanted to buy the object only if one part of the nonoccupied area was additionally rented out for a period of five years. A real estate administration company (GmbH - German limited company) obliged itself towards the KG to rent this part in return for a single payment amounting to EUR 900,000. The KG and GmbH signed the contract on the same day. The duration of the rental agreement was supposed to be five years. The cumulated monthly rents amounted EUR 900,000 (60 x EUR 15,000) plus VAT regardless of the advance payments of auxiliary and operating costs. In addition, the KG sold the property to the purchaser on the same day. The purchaser entered into the rental

7 VAT Newsletter 7 agreement concluded between the GmbH and the KG. The BFH already doubts that the supply provided by the GmbH is subject to VAT in any case. Pursuant to 4 no. 8 (g) UStG, however; the assumption of liabilities is VAT exempt. As a result of the GmbH s conclusion of a rental agreement as a tenant by making a supply in consideration of payment, a liability within the meaning of 4 no. 8 (g) UStG was constituted and a monetary liability was assumed, according to the CJEU case-law (ruling of 19 April 2007 case C-455/05 - Velvet & Steel Immobilien). It is different from the liabilities arising from fulfillment of the rental agreement. According to the interpretation in line with the Directive, the differentiation is not to be made as to whether the GmbH assumed the liabilities of a tenant from a rental agreement concluded previously or whether it commits itself to enter into a rental agreement. Obligation of the business minimum usage partly violates the Union law BFH, ruling of 16 November 2016, XI R 15/13 The regulation of 15 (1) sent. 2 UStG relates to a delivery, import or the intra-community purchase of an item that the trader uses for less than 10 percent of its business. In such cases the relation is not considered as being executed for the company and a (partly) input tax deduction is ruled out. As far as the regulation refers to supplies being used for private purposes to up to over 90 percent, according to the ruling 2004/817/EC of the European Council an entitlement to full input tax deduction granted by the EU law shall apply. However, the regulation violates the Union law insofar as the input tax deduction for input transactions is excluded, which are used over 90 percent for non-business activities that are not within the scope of application of the VAT. This includes also activities carried out by a public sector entity, such as in the present case. A trader may rely on the Union law that is more favorable to him and apply the partial input tax deduction. The BFH reaches this conclusion according to the CJEU ruling of 15 September 2016 case C-400/15 - Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark (see VAT Newsletter August/September 2016). Violations relate only to periods before 1 January 2016, because the EU entitlement is expanded with effect of this date. The ruling is not only relevant for activities of public service entities, but also for other economic activities in the narrower sense. According to the German tax authorities, this includes particularly non-profit making activities carried out by associations for charitable purposes, the mere acquisition, holding and disposal of holdings and the non-occupancy of a building connected to a continuous non-usage. Extended review of sale and lease back businesses BMF, guidance of 3 February III C 2 S 7100/07/10031 :006 A sale and lease back business means that the ownership of an item is transferred to a lessor based on a purchase agreement, who leases the item to the seller (lessee). Depending on the specific contractual content and actual execution, two separate transactions may be given - the supply of goods to and back within the meaning of 3 (1) UStG. The sale and lease back may also include a uniform transaction of the lessor in form of a VAT exempt grant of loan ( 4 no. 8 (a) UStG). According to the BMF guidance, a VATable supply of the lessor may be considered as a third option. This requires the sale and lease back business to be substantially aimed providing the lessee a favorable financial setup. On the other hand, the lessee must have mainly financed the acquisition by the lessor through a loan. The BMF concluded this from the BFH ruling of 6 April 2016, V R 12/15 (see VAT Newsletter August/September 2016). The VAT Application Decree will be amended accordingly. The rules must be applied to all open cases. Environmental bonus and commercial leasing BMF, guidance of 1 December III C 2 S 7200/07/10010 Since 18 May 2016 it applies that one may apply for a socalled environmental bonus if one acquires (purchase or leasing) a new electronic vehicle. The environmental bonus consists of a federal proportion and a proportion of the participating automobile manufacturers that is at least equal. For further information, please read the fact sheet of the Federal Office of Economics and

8 VAT Newsletter 8 Export Control of 29 June 2016 (last update 10 January 2017). In the guidance, the BMF has commented to the Association of the Automotive Industry (Verband der Automobilindustrie VDA) on the VAT treatment of the environmental bonus granted when leasing a new electronic vehicle. Principally, the BMF takes the view that the environmental bonus granted by the federal government is a real, non-taxable subsidiary. On the other hand, the environmental bonus granted by the industry had an impact on the payment to be made by the end user. commented on the transitional regulation ( 27 (22) UStG) (see VAT Newsletter May 2016). The present BMF guidance deals in detail with the content of the new regulation of 2b UStG. In addition, one section deals with questions on the input tax deduction and input tax adjustment ( 15, 15a UStG). Furthermore, it needs to be pointed out that a possible revocation of an option exercise may also be vowed retrospectively, if the VAT assessment for the relevant calender year is not yet materially final. Since commercial lessees may transfer the claim to the proportion of the environmental bonus paid by the federal government to the lessor or the dealer, the BMF comments in more detail about the VAT treatment of the federal proportion to the environmental bonus taking into account different leasing case set-ups. VAT taxation of the public sector BMF, guidance of 16 December III C 2 S 7107/16/10001 Due to the Tax Amendment Act 2015, the regulation on the business activity of legal persons of the public sector was amended. 2 (3) UStG was waived, a transitional regulation was applied ( 27 (22) UStG) and 2b UStG was included into the VAT law. Based on the transitional regulation, it is possible to apply this new regulation only for new transactions carried out as of 1 January 2021 if the relevant option is exercised. In its guidance of 19 April 2016, the BMF has already

9 VAT Newsletter 9 UPCOMING EVENTS VAT 2017 Current Developments and Hot Topics What is going to change in the VAT area in 2017? KPMG experts will inform you about current developments and make you familiar with the new developments in the legal situation and selected rulings of the CJEU, BFH and individual Lower Tax Courts. Get to know typical pitfalls from the commercial practice and also learn how to avoid them. We will conclude this overview with a presentation of selected administrative guidances. Please find further information on these events here. 08 March 2017 Berlin 16 March 2017 Karlsruhe 16 March 2017 Munich 16 March 2017 Duesseldorf 16 March 2017 Leipzig 22 March 2017 Stuttgart 22 March 2017 Frankfurt/Main 23 March 2017 Mannheim 23 March 2017 Bielefeld 28 March 2017 Dortmund 28 March 2017 Aachen 29 March 2017 Lübeck 29 March 2017 Cologne 30 March 2017 Braunschweig 04 April 2017 Kiel 04 April 2017 Hanover 04 April 2017 Regensburg 05 April 2017 Bremen 06 April 2017 Hamburg 06 April 2017 Neu Ulm 06 April 2017 Nuremberg

10 VAT Newsletter 10 Contacts KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Head of Indirect Tax Services Dr. Stefan Böhler Stuttgart T sboehler@kpmg.com Berlin Martin Schmitz T martinschmitz@kpmg.com Duesseldorf Peter Rauß T prauss@kpmg.com Ursula Slapio T uslapio@kpmg.com Frankfurt/Main Prof. Dr. Gerhard Janott T gjanott@kpmg.com Wendy Rodewald T wrodewald@kpmg.com Dr. Karsten Schuck T kschuck@kpmg.com Hamburg Gregor Dzieyk T gdzieyk@kpmg.com Antje Müller T amueller@kpmg.com Cologne Peter Schalk T pschalk@kpmg.com Munich Dr. Erik Birkedal T ebirkedal@kpmg.com Günther Dürndorfer* T gduerndorfer@kpmg.com Kathrin Feil T kfeil@kpmg.com Claudia Hillek T chillek@kpmg.com Stuttgart Dr. Stefan Böhler T sboehler@kpmg.com International Network of KPMG If you would like to know more about international VAT issues please visit our homepage KPMG International**. Further on this website the periodical publication Global Indirect Tax Brief (KPMG International) are published. We would be glad to assist you in collaboration with our KPMG network in your worldwide VAT activities. You can also get up-to-date information via our homepage. * Trade & Customs **Please note that KPMG International does not provide any client services. Impressum Issuer KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft THE SQUAIRE, Am Flughafen Frankfurt/Main Editor Ursula Slapio (Responsible***) T uslapio@kpmg.com Christoph Jünger T cjuenger@kpmg.com VAT Newsletter and Customs & Trade News Free Subscription To subscribe, please register at: subscribe.aspx *** Responsible according to German Law ( 7 (2) Berliner PresseG) The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. Our services are provided subject to our verification whether a provision of the specific services is permissible in the individual case KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ( KPMG International ), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks of KPMG International.