This summer has brought many changes to the Commerce Act. Some of the amendments came into force on 1 June and others on 1 July. All these changes to a greater or lesser extent affect particular persons that are subject to the Commerce Act, and in this article we explore some of the effective amendments.
Silver level subscribers have access to full content, including articles and archive, useful resources, as well as subscribers have an opportunity to ask questions to PwC consultants.
For Bronze level subscribers and Free trial users access to certain sections of MindLink.lv will be limited.
Detailed information in section "Subscribe".
Subscribe Sign inIf you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionThe crypto-asset sector has made changes to the payment and investment markets and challenged the tax authorities to trace capital gains arising on crypto-asset trades. On 16 May 2023 the EU Council supported the European Commission’s proposal to require crypto-asset service providers to report on transactions their EU customers perform in crypto-asset markets. This will help the tax authorities monitor crypto-asset trading and revenues, thereby reducing the risk of tax fraud and tax evasion. The reporting system is to be implemented with amendments to the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (“DAC”), which is the main system for exchanging data between the tax authorities. The new reporting rules have been passed in addition to the Regulation on Markets in Crypto Assets (“MiCA”) amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, and to the Regulation on information accompanying transfers of funds, and these rules are fully consistent with the OECD’s crypto-asset reporting initiative.
Fixed assets, and sometimes inventories too, have to be written off if they no longer meet your company’s needs or are obsolete, or if there is no demand for them. The issue of input tax deduction always comes up in such situations, and has been recently heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This article explores Ruling C‑127/22 (Balgarska telekomunikatsionna kompania) of 4 May 2023.
Taking care of employees’ mental health is not merely idle chatter or a formal work safety obligation. An employer that fails to pay attention to staff overload issues may face some real legal consequences. This article examines the legal implications of a worker being diagnosed with burnout syndrome and offers a practical overview of how the employer could respond.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.