The plaintiff’s consulting services do not qualify for VAT exemption under § 4 (14) UStG as they do not primarily serve the treatment, relief, or prevention of illness. Instead, they serve as a basis for determining the extent of the insured person’s entitlement to reimbursement of costs under the Law on Nursing Care Insurance.Additionally, the plaintiff’s services do not qualify for VAT exemption under § 4 (16) UStG as they are not related to care or nursing of individuals.The plaintiff cannot rely on VAT exemption under Article 132 (1) (g) of the VAT Directive, as her services are not considered indispensable for the measures of social welfare and social security. The fact that she provided her services to the MDK (Medical Service of the Health Insurance), not directly to the individuals requiring care, does not disqualify her services as closely related to social welfare and social security under the EU law.The recognition of the plaintiff as an institution with a social character under Article 132 (1) (g) MwStSystRL does not follow from the fact that her services were indirectly funded by social security institutions. Furthermore, she is not recognized as an institution with a social character under German law.
Source: bundesfinanzhof.de
