To pick up where we left off last week, in this article we look at proposals for amending the VAT Act, which include a move to direct application of 0% VAT to diplomatic and consular offices, update the conditions for registering a fiscal representative with the State Revenue Service (SRS) and ease the terms of the special VAT scheme for imports. We will also look at the margin scheme for second-hand goods and exemptions available to non-domestic taxable persons suppling goods in temporary storage.
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 questionAs you may know, approval of the national medium-term tax policy guidelines, which was supposed to take place by 1 April 2024, has been delayed considerably. It’s not known for sure yet whether and how this will affect VAT treatment in future. However, the Ministry of Finance has drafted proposals for amending the VAT Act, aimed at passing the EU directive to ease the administrative burden on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and to improve the rules for applying 0% VAT and the margin scheme for second-hand goods, works of art, antiques and collectors’ items. The amendments are to come into force on 1 January 2025. This article explores what we see as key changes.
In early July 2024, the European Commission (EC) published its annual report on tax policies across the EU. Value added tax (VAT) is one of the most important taxes in the EU accounting for about 7.5% of GDP and 18.6% of total EU tax revenue in 2022. This article explores the EC’s VAT findings.
In this article, we will explore how the courts ruled on a tax audit where the State Revenue Service (SRS) claimed the company under audit had wrongly deducted input VAT and misapplied a ratio. Although the SRS did not approve the company’s adjustments to its VAT returns and did not refund the VAT it had overpaid, the courts found the penalty and interest charged by the SRS to be justified. This case highlights important lessons for companies to avoid similar problems in the future.
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.