A Oy’s financial management software to its corporate customers to buy the services provided by third parties. These services included B Oy’s loan service. B Oy offered A Oy’s customers a loan in which the customer’s trade receivables in the financial management software in question act as collateral for the loan. The trade receivables secured by the customer’s loan could only be paid to B Oy. A Oy markets the said service to its customers. A Oy took care of the availability of B Oy’s loan service in its financial management software, and after the loan decision, the customer can withdraw the loan through that financial management software. B Oy received, among other things, the customer’s bank connection and a copy of the sales invoices for the credit security assessment of the financial management software in question. A Oy made transfer entries to the customer’s sales invoices in its financial management software on behalf of the customer using it. A Oy received a fee from B Oy as a share of the interest on the loan charged by the customer.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that, in the circumstances set out in the application, A Oy brought its corporate customer and B Oy together so that they could enter into an agreement with each other to grant the loan. The technical way in which the service was provided, such as manually or using an information system, was irrelevant in assessing the VAT nature of the service. Considering the nature and content of the service between A Oy and B Oy and the accumulation of the company’s fee as a share of interest on corporate loans, credit intermediation based on the financing of corporate receivables using the company’s financial management software had to be considered the main performance of the service provided by A Oy. Brokerage activities typically also included the marketing of the product to be brokered, nor could these marketing measures be considered as a service separate from the brokerage service. Taking into account the provisions of the VAT Directive on exempt financial services and the case law of the Court of Justice on their interpretation, as well as the nature and purpose of the services, the fee received from B Oy was compensation for credit intermediation as a tax-free financial service. Consequently, the company was not required to pay VAT on the fees referred to in the order for reference. The fee received from it was compensation for the intermediation of credit as a tax-free financial service. Consequently, the company was not required to pay VAT on the fees referred to in the order for reference. The fee received from it was compensation for the intermediation of credit as a tax-free financial service. Consequently, the company was not required to pay VAT on the fees referred to in the order for reference.
Source: kho.fi
