Increase in VAT liability – The sale of property is considered liable for VAT

Date of publication	28 Oct 2022 11:33
Date of delivered judgment/ order/ decision/ control signal	23 Sep 2022 11:15
SKM number	SKM2022.519.LSR
Authority	National Tax Court
Responsible board	The Danish Tax Agency
Case number	18-0024717
Document type	Decision
Parent topics	VAT and payroll tax
Parent topics	VAT liability
Subject word	Sales, property, building land, VAT liability, financial business
Summary	The case concerned whether a company’s sale of a property in 2016 had taken place in the company’s capacity as a taxable person, cf. VAT Act § 3, subsection 1, and whether what was sold was a building plot that was subject to VAT in accordance with section 13, subsection of the VAT Act. 1, no. 9. The company argued that the property had been part of the company’s operation as a warehouse before the property’s buildings were demolished in 2013. The land had never been part of the company’s operation in isolation. Furthermore, the company argued that it was not a sale of a building plot, as a final local plan had not been adopted at the time of the transfer. The National Tax Court stated that during the company’s ownership the property had been used as part of the company’s VAT-liable activity, and that the company had declared deductions for the input VAT until 30 June 2017, when the company was deregistered for VAT. Therefore, the sale of the property constituted a transaction subject to VAT, where the company acted in the capacity of a taxable person, cf. the VAT Act § 3, subsection 1. The National Tax Court further found that the property was a building plot at the time of transfer, cf. VAT Order section 56, subsection 1. The court considered that the property was an undeveloped area which was located in an urban zone in an already built-up area. The property was therefore already zoned for purposes which enabled the construction of buildings. The fact that a final local plan had not been adopted at the time of the handover could not therefore lead to a different result. The National Tax Court therefore upheld the Tax Agency’s decision, according to which the sale of the property was subject to VAT. Section 3, subsection of the VAT Act 1. The National Tax Court further found that the property was a building plot at the time of transfer, cf. VAT Order section 56, subsection 1. The court considered that the property was an undeveloped area which was located in an urban zone in an already built-up area. The property was therefore already zoned for purposes which enabled the construction of buildings. The fact that a final local plan had not been adopted at the time of the handover could not therefore lead to a different result. The National Tax Court therefore upheld the Tax Agency’s decision, according to which the sale of the property was subject to VAT. Section 3, subsection of the VAT Act 1. The National Tax Court further found that the property was a building plot at the time of transfer, cf. VAT Order section 56, subsection 1. The court considered that the property was an undeveloped area which was located in an urban zone in an already built-up area. The property was therefore already zoned for purposes which enabled the construction of buildings. The fact that a final local plan had not been adopted at the time of the handover could not therefore lead to a different result. The National Tax Court therefore upheld the Tax Agency’s decision, according to which the sale of the property was subject to VAT. The property was therefore already zoned for purposes which enabled the construction of buildings. The fact that a final local plan had not been adopted at the time of the handover could not therefore lead to a different result. The National Tax Court therefore upheld the Tax Agency’s decision, according to which the sale of the property was subject to VAT. The property was therefore already zoned for purposes which enabled the construction of buildings. The fact that a final local plan had not been adopted at the time of the handover could not therefore lead to a different result. The National Tax Court therefore upheld the Tax Agency’s decision, according to which the sale of the property was subject to VAT.
Reference(s)	Section 3 of the VAT Act, Section 3, subsection 1, § 4, subsection 1, § 4, subsection 1, 1st point, § 8, subsection 1, 1st and 2nd pt., § 13, subsection 1, no. 9, section 13, subsection 1, no. 9, letter b, § 47, subsection 6 Section 56 of the VAT Executive Order, subsection 1 Legislative Decree No. 1529 of 23 November 2015 on planning (Planning Act) Section 34