Companies are sometimes unsure whether a transaction affecting them qualifies as the transfer of a business as a going concern (TOGC). This is a crucial question in identifying a number of potential risks, including VAT liabilities. If a TOGC has occurred, the transaction is not subject to VAT if the acquirer is registered for VAT and continues a business that does not involve asset stripping or liquidating the company.
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 questionEffective from 11 January 2024, the Ministry of Finance has amended the Cabinet of Ministers’ Rule No. 1507 of 17 December 2013, ‘The procedure for refunding VAT to a taxable person registered in a third country or territory’, and Rule No. 1514 of 17 December 2013, ‘The procedure for filing a registered taxable person’s VAT refund claim in another EU member state and the procedure for refunding VAT to a taxable person registered in another EU member state’.
The amendments apply in particular to EU and non-EU registered taxable persons that are not established in Latvia but acquire services related to real estate (RE) and claim a VAT refund because the services are acquired to make supplies that attract Latvian reverse-charge VAT.
On 21 December 2023 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) passed ruling C-288/22 on whether a public limited company’s board members are taxable persons for VAT purposes. This ruling is important because it explains what criteria must be met if a person is to be treated as carrying out an economic activity that forms the basis for paying VAT and what factors should be considered to determine whether someone is an independent taxable person.
In its ruling C26128713, SKC-201/2019 of 28 June 2019, the Supreme Court took a different view on the VAT Act’s condition that the taxable amount should include only taxes payable in relation to a supply of services. The dispute involved a forced lease of land that stipulated a rent plus a compensation of real estate tax (RET). The Supreme Court was assessing whether VAT should be charged on the compensation. First of all, the assessment focused on what items attract RET and who is liable to pay it.
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.