The court upheld the Ministry of Taxation’s decision that a (ed.removed.profession1) school, whose educational activities in (ed.removed.education) were exclusively financed by state grants, and which, alongside this non-economic business that fell outside the VAT Act’s scope of application, carried out commercial course activities subject to VAT, cf. the VAT Act § 13, subsection 1, no. 3, 2nd point, had to calculate the right to deduct for his general costs (office maintenance, building maintenance, etc.) according to section 38, subsection of the VAT Act. 2. The court agreed that the partial right of deduction according to section 38, subsection 2, could be estimated at 1-2 per cent. which happened in the Tax Agency’s decisions, whereby the state subsidy was taken into account in the exercise of discretion. The court found that the Tax Agency’s decision against H1 was not in conflict with an administrative practice that had taken a position on a situation such as the present one.
Source: info.skat.dk
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.
