- The ruling concerns the VAT treatment of copyright warnings.
- The plaintiff worked as an independent architectural photographer and contracted a lawyer to pursue copyright infringements.
- The lawyers demanded that infringers stop unauthorized use of the photo and claimed damages and compensation.
- The Lower Tax Court concluded that all payments made by the infringer constitute a payment for a supply provided by the copyright holder.
- An appeal has been lodged against this ruling.
- The BerlinBrandenburg tax court states that it does not matter whether the warning party claims compensation for expenses or damages.
- The tax court does not examine in detail whether the entire amount paid constitutes remuneration for the warning service.
- The BFH ruling from 2019 did not clearly answer the question of whether the entire amount paid constitutes remuneration for the warning service.
- The BMF guidance states that no objection will be raised if those involved agree to assume there is no payment subject to VAT for copyright infringement made before 1 November 2021.
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.