With environmentally friendly practices, such as waste sorting and recycling, becoming the order of the day, the natural resource tax (NRT) treatment is a hot topic too. As you know, packaging is one of the items subject to NRT. The obligation to pay tax or the right to take an exemption lies with the person who is the first to sell goods in packaging in Latvia, including foreign companies supplying their goods to Latvian companies. There are plans to amend the NRT Act on how foreign persons may take an exemption.
Under the current provisions of the NRT Act, tax is paid by the person who is the first to sell goods in packaging in Latvia. However, the Act offers an exemption if that person enters into an agreement for participation in the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme (EPRS). Instead of NRT, a fee is then payable to a waste management company that will perform waste collection, sorting and recycling as well as other functions. Since the NRT system aims to promote waste management, the fee is substantially lower than the tax charge.
The NRT treatment also affects foreign suppliers because tax is payable by the person who is the first to bring in environmentally harmful goods or goods in packaging. Guidance issued by the State Revenue Service (SRS) on how foreign suppliers should pay NRT states that the person who is the first to bring goods into Latvia is the one who is the first to cross the Latvian border. So we need to evaluate which of the parties to the transaction owns the goods when they cross the border. The NRT Act states that instead of a foreign supplier who is not registered as a taxpayer with the SRS, NRT may be paid by the recipient of goods or by another person authorised in writing. However, an exemption subject to a waste management contract means a lower cost.
The NRT rules have so far imposed no restrictions on persons established in other EU member states that enter into agreements in their own name to take part in EPRS, so in practice many EU companies themselves enter into such agreements, and Latvian companies buying goods in packaging from a supplier established in another member state don’t always face questions about paying NRT on packaging. There is a restriction, however, on third-country persons entering into agreements to take part in EPRS. The NRT Act states that participation is possible if the third-country person either registers as a taxpayer with the SRS or authorises in writing a person doing business in Latvia to take over the third-country producer’s responsibility in Latvia for carrying out his EPRS obligations.
Proposals for amending the NRT Act, which are currently awaiting the Cabinet of Ministers’ review and approval, provide for adjusting the requirements for a foreign person’s participation in EPRS to make those applicable to persons established in other member states as well as in third countries. So in future an EU person marketing goods in packaging in Latvia will be able to take part in EPRS if it registers as a taxpayer with the SRS or authorises in writing a Latvian company to take over the responsibility in Latvia for carrying out the EPRS participant’s obligations. The person established in another member state or a third country will also have to notify the waste manager of that authorised company.
For goods arriving in packaging from a taxpayer established in another member state that is not registered in Latvia, the new legislation creates the need to engage a Latvian company in order to reduce NRT costs and enter into an agreement with a waste manager for participation in EPRS. It might be possible for the parties to agree on this engagement in their contract for the supply of goods.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionOn 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.
On 20 April 2022 the Regional Administrative Court again ruled on a dispute between a Latvian company and the State Revenue Service (SRS) about refunding overpaid personal income tax in a situation of double taxation. This court ruling follows the Supreme Court Administrative Division’s ruling No. A420282416 of 9 July 2020 (SKA-150/2020). The Regional Administrative Court’s anonymised ruling is available under case No. A420282416 (archive No. AA43-0096-22/15).
With the labour market crossing national borders, Latvian employers are looking abroad to attract not only management talent but also routine workers. As the Covid-19 crisis lingers on and the significance of remote work grows, Latvian companies are increasingly wondering about the best ways to employ foreign workers, especially if they work remotely from their home country.
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.