- The ruling concerns the VAT treatment of copyright warnings.
- The plaintiff worked as an independent architectural photographer and contracted a lawyer to pursue copyright infringements.
- The lawyers demanded that infringers stop unauthorized use of the photo and claimed damages and compensation.
- The Lower Tax Court concluded that all payments made by the infringer constitute a payment for a supply provided by the copyright holder.
- An appeal has been lodged against this ruling.
- The BerlinBrandenburg tax court states that it does not matter whether the warning party claims compensation for expenses or damages.
- The tax court does not examine in detail whether the entire amount paid constitutes remuneration for the warning service.
- The BFH ruling from 2019 did not clearly answer the question of whether the entire amount paid constitutes remuneration for the warning service.
- The BMF guidance states that no objection will be raised if those involved agree to assume there is no payment subject to VAT for copyright infringement made before 1 November 2021.
Source: hub.kpmg.de
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
