SKM2023.75.LSR
National Tax Court
18-0000479
Decision
The case concerned a complaint about the Tax Council’s answer to a question regarding deductions for VAT in connection with catering for employees and extras during TV production. The National Tax Court found that, on the basis presented, the questioner had not proven that the questioner was covered by the favorable administrative practice, cf. SKAT’s control signals published as SKM2010.622.SKAT and SKM2011.829.SKAT, according to which a deduction can be recognized according to §§ 37 and 38 of the VAT Act for tax on purchases which relate to meals for staff and business relations in the own canteen in connection with holding meetings in the company and meals for employees in connection with unannounced ordered overtime. It was taken into account that employees and extras were fed at temporary locations in connection with TV production and not in the questioner’s own canteen in connection with holding meetings in the company or in connection with unannounced ordered overtime. The question of the questioner’s right to deduct therefore had to be decided on the basis of an interpretation of section 42(1) of the VAT Act. 1, no. 1. The National Tax Court found that section 42 of the VAT Act, subsection 1, no. 1, according to its wording and elaboration, must be understood as such, that the right to deduct is cut off for tax on the purchase of food for staff and owners, and that in this context it is irrelevant whether the catering is justified by the company’s business needs. Based on the purpose of the provision, the National Tax Court also found that extras etc., who did not receive a cash salary, but were only remunerated in the form of meals, were covered by the term “personnel” in the provision. There was therefore no right to a deduction for the part of the meal that was delivered to employees who received a salary, or to extras etc. who did not receive a salary, but only food, cf. the VAT Act section 42, subsection 1, no. 1. The National Tax Court therefore confirmed the Tax Council’s answer to the question asked. Based on the purpose of the provision, the National Tax Court also found that extras etc., who did not receive a cash salary, but were only remunerated in the form of meals, were covered by the term “personnel” in the provision. There was therefore no right to a deduction for the part of the meal that was delivered to employees who received a salary, or to extras etc. who did not receive a salary, but only food, cf. the VAT Act section 42, subsection 1, no. 1. The National Tax Court therefore confirmed the Tax Council’s answer to the question asked. Based on the purpose of the provision, the National Tax Court also found that extras etc., who did not receive a cash salary, but were only remunerated in the form of meals, were covered by the term “personnel” in the provision. There was therefore no right to a deduction for the part of the meal that was delivered to employees who received a salary, or to extras etc. who did not receive a salary, but only food, cf. the VAT Act section 42, subsection 1, no. 1. The National Tax Court therefore confirmed the Tax Council’s answer to the question asked. who did not receive salary, but only board, cf. VAT Act section 42, subsection 1, no. 1. The National Tax Court therefore confirmed the Tax Council’s answer to the question asked. who did not receive salary, but only board, cf. VAT Act section 42, subsection 1, no. 1. The National Tax Court therefore confirmed the Tax Council’s answer to the question asked.
Source: skat.dk
