SKAT had increased a production school’s VAT liability, as SKAT had considered a number of the school’s revenues to be covered by the scope of the VAT Act, cf. Section 4, subsection of the VAT Act. 1, according to which it must be a matter of delivery for consideration, and a number of the school’s expenses not to be or only partially deductible. The income in question was a subsidy, and the National Tax Court stated that a subsidy is covered by the scope of the VAT Act if it is granted to a trader in return for the latter providing a specific service to a customer who benefits from the subsidy. It was not necessary that the subsidy amount corresponded exactly to the decrease in the price of the service provided, but that there was a clear relationship between the decrease in price and the subsidy. The National Tax Court found, after specific assessments, that two of the school’s grants were covered by the VAT Act’s scope of application, and thus had to be included in the calculation of the partial right of deduction according to Section 38, subsection 1 of the VAT Act. 1, and that one grant was not. With regard to a number of the school’s various expenses in connection with activities in the kitchen and wood workshop, the National Tax Court found, after specific assessments, that some were used exclusively for deductible, VAT-liable transactions (production of goods for resale), some were used for non-deductible educational purposes , and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation. and thus had to be included in the calculation of the partial right of deduction according to section 38, subsection of the VAT Act. 1, and that one subsidy was not. With regard to a number of the school’s various expenses in connection with activities in the kitchen and wood workshop, the National Tax Court found, after specific assessments, that some were used exclusively for deductible, VAT-liable transactions (production of goods for resale), some were used for non-deductible educational purposes , and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation. and thus had to be included in the calculation of the partial right of deduction according to section 38, subsection of the VAT Act. 1, and that one grant was not. With regard to a number of the school’s various expenses in connection with activities in the kitchen and wood workshop, the National Tax Court found, after specific assessments, that some were used exclusively for deductible, VAT-liable transactions (production of goods for resale), some were used for non-deductible educational purposes , and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation. With regard to a number of the school’s various expenses in connection with activities in the kitchen and wood workshop, the National Tax Court found, after specific assessments, that some were used exclusively for deductible, VAT-liable transactions (production of goods for resale), some were used for non-deductible educational purposes , and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation. With regard to a number of the school’s various expenses in connection with activities in the kitchen and wood workshop, the National Tax Court found, after specific assessments, that some were used exclusively for deductible, VAT-liable transactions (production of goods for resale), some were used for non-deductible educational purposes , and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation. some were used for non-deductible educational purposes, and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation. some were used for non-deductible educational purposes, and that some were used for both deductible and non-deductible purposes. As the National Tax Court’s assessments on several points differed from SKAT’s assessments, the National Tax Court referred the case back to the numerical calculation.
Source: skat.dk
