- Latvijas Informâcijas un komunikâcijas tehnoloìijas asociâcija acted as an intermediary between training providers, funding bodies, and businesses
- The question for the CJEU was whether the Association acted as a link in the supply chain or merely organised subsidised training
- Advocate General Julianne Kokott’s opinion was that the Association was involved in the supply chain on one project
- AG Kokott considered whether the Association was supplying training in the course of an economic activity
- The Association bid for project ownership, linked up with training providers, identified possible trainees, and bore some economic risk
- Latvian law requiring ERDF projects to be implemented by government or non-profit associations did not alter the conclusion that the Association was in business and entitled to recover VAT on charges from training providers.
Source: taxscape.deloitte.com
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.
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”VAT Grouping” (Art. 11 of EU VAT Directive)
- VAT Concepts Explained: Exemptions vs zero‑rating (and the hidden cost of exemption)
- EU adopts 20th package of sanctions against Russia
- Transfer Pricing and VAT: Navigating Overlaps, Risks, and Key ECJ Case Law for Multinationals
- Preliminary Questions on VAT Transfer of a Going Concern in Real Estate Transactions in the Netherlands
