In the VAT proceedings, the Ghent Court of Appeal ruled that the VAT authorities had wrongfully decided that the transfer fee qualified as an indemnity. The VAT authorities’ sole ground for this point of view was an older administrative decision in which the VAT authorities had acknowledged that the transfer fee of a player qualified as a VAT taxable service. Given that the decision only mentioned players and not trainers, the VAT authorities had taken the view that a trainer’s transfer did not qualify as a VAT taxable service. The Ghent Court of Appeal dismissed the VAT authorities’ argument and said that there was no reason to differentiate between the VAT treatment of a player’s and a trainer’s transfer fee. Therefore, the club was entitled to recover the VAT paid on the trainer’s fee.
Source Atfield
Latest Posts in "Belgium"
- Belgium Proposes VAT Reform for Art, Antiques, and Virtual Services to Align with EU Directive
- Belgium Postpones VAT Chain Reform and Eases Reporting for Mixed and Partial Taxpayers
- Comments on GC T‑575/24 – AG – Contrary to EU law if services provided to members are regarded as internal acts
- E-Invoicing in Belgium – Factsheet
- Comments on ECJ case C-234/24 (Brose Prievidza):No VAT Exemption for Tooling Without Physical Movement
