By decision of Parliament Speaker I. Murniece, the double tax treaty (DTT) and its protocol have been suspended indefinitely from 16 May. The decision makes unavailable from this date the DTT and national reliefs that provided for an exemption on the basis that Russia had a DTT with Latvia. In this article we explore how this decision affects paying taxes. And we note that the Latvia-Russia social security agreement is still in force.
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 questionFor many years, challenging the receipt of intragroup services and commercial benefits has been among the most popular grounds for corporate income tax (CIT) assessments made by the State Revenue Service (SRS). Our analysis of one of the latest publicly available transfer pricing court cases leads to the conclusion that such a taxpayer dispute with the SRS has not lost its relevance. This article looks at an example from the Latvian court case – the taxpayer’s dispute with the SRS over missing evidence that the taxpayer has actually received management services from a related foreign company.
After the Russian Federation decided on 23 February 2022 to recognise the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic as independent states, followed by the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, the EU, the UK, the US and Canada as well as other countries have launched wide-ranging sanctions aimed at changing Russia’s behaviour and eliminating the current threats in Ukraine and CEE.
On 24 February 2022 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on a dispute over the VAT treatment of costs the customer had recharged to the supplier of goods under the contract during the warranty period. This article explores what the CJEU found and how those findings can be put into practice.
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.