nlfren
PRINT
SITEMAP | DISCLAIMER
Voorstelling   Vakgebieden   Lawyers   Coördinaten   Nieuws   Jobs   Algemene voorwaarden  
Belgium simplifies proof of supply for intra-Community supplies
 
When a VAT payer in one EU Member State makes a supply of goods to a VAT payer in another EU Member State, that is an intra-Community supply. In such case, the place of supply is the place where the goods are delivered after dispatch or transport of the goods (article 40 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax).

VAT is due in the country where the receiver is located, and the supplier must issue an invoice without VAT. However, he can only use the VAT exemption if he proves that his customer is a VAT payer with a valid VAT number (see) and that the goods have been dispatched or transported to the other EU Member State.

The Belgian legislation is quite strict in respect of the obligation of the Belgian supplier to evidence that there has been an intra-Community transport to the other Member State. Article 3 of Royal Decree nr. 52 provides that the supplier must keep a set of commercial documents supporting the intra-Community transport. In practice, the VAT Authorities require any document such as contracts, invoices, purchase orders, payment and transport documents, and they clarify that taken separately, these documents are not acceptable as sufficient evidence, but that they can be sufficient together with other documents. In that respect, transport documents are generally considered essential.

When a Belgian supplier does not charge VAT on an intra-Community supply of goods, the VAT authorities may question that the supply has taken place, in particular where the supplier did not personally deliver the goods in person or when the customer took delivery of the goods in Belgium to transport them back to his own Member State. The penalties are, in particular, quite high, with fines up to 200% of the VAT on these invoices.

Destination Document

In a recent Practice Note nr. E.T. 129.460 dated 1 July 2015, the VAT Authorities admit that the requirements were too stringent in the light of article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC that states that Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.

To this effect, they introduce a new form, the ‘Destination Document’ that will be accepted as a simplified alternative that will evidence that goods have been dispatched or transported and supplied to a VAT payer in another EU Member State.

In this “Destination Document” the VAT-payer in the other EU Member State certifies that the goods have been received within the EU, irrespective of the terms of delivery terms agreed between parties. A separate document is not required for all intra-Community supplies of goods to the same customer; they can be grouped for periods of three months.

The destination document is drawn up by either the vendor or the purchaser, and it may be sent electronically. It is signed by a representative of the purchaser and mentions “received for [the purchaser]”. The vendor must have the identity of the representative confirmed by mail or by email.

If the vendor can provide the document that is a valid alternative for the transportation document and can be used to prove the intra-Community supply of goods. However, the VAT Authorities expect that the Belgian supplier will be able to present the sales invoice, the proof of payment, and possibly the invoice for the transport and that he does anything to avoid being involved in a VAT fraud.

The VAT Authorities reserve the right to demand other documents, other than transport documents, to check that the transaction is genuine and that it corresponds with the information mentioned in the Destination Document. In other words, the Belgian VAT-payer is not released of his obligation to provide other documents (such as contracts, invoices, purchase orders, payment and transport documents) to justify the VAT exemption.

19 July 2016 
Marc Quaghebeur
De Broeck Van Laere & Partners



19-06-19 Onroerende verhuur met BTW: fiscus geeft nuttige verduidelijkingen
Sinds 1 januari 2019 is het mogelijk om – optioneel – een gebouw te verhuren mét BTW. Dat betekent dus dat de BTW op de kosten voor dat gebouw aftrekbaar wordt. Er zijn echter allerlei voorwaarden en speciale regimes, wat de nieuwe optieregeling behoorlijk ingewikkeld maakt. De fiscus poogt nu enige klaarheid te scheppen met een “FAQ”, een lijst met antwoorden op vaak gestelde vragen.....lees meer
 
19-06-19 Afzonderlijke belasting van vergoedingen na stopzetting: geen “normale beroepswerkzaamheid” meer nodig
Inzake afzonderlijke belasting van bepaalde achterstallen, opzeg- en compensatievergoedingen enz. keren we terug naar het gunstige regime van vóór 2013. De enge interpretatie door het Hof van Cassatie van het begrip “normale beroepswerkzaamheid” wordt naar de prullenmand verwezen door dat begrip uit de wet te schrappen. De oude interpretatie van de fiscus wordt in de wet ingeschreven.....lees meer
 
14-06-19 Effectieve prestaties door managementvennootschap zijn niet vereist
Met de aftrek van vergoedingen die betaald worden aan een managementvennootschap, is er principieel geen enkel probleem, oordeelt het Hof van Cassatie. De fiscus gebruikt vaak het argument dat de vennootschap zelf geen effectieve managementprestaties levert. Dat doen de natuurlijke personen achter de vennootschap. Maar dat argument doet niet ter zake, aldus het Hof van Cassatie. ....lees meer
 
29-05-19 Fiscus haalt het misbruikwapen boven tegen vastgeklikte reserves
Stilaan zien we in de rechtspraak de eerste toepassingen van de vernieuwde algemene rechtsmisbruikbepaling. In veel gevallen lijkt de fiscus voorlopig gelijk te krijgen. De nieuwe versie van artikel 344, §1 blijkt dus een krachtiger wapen in handen van de fiscus dan de oude versie. De fiscus roept die bepaling o.m. in tegen vennootschappen die gebruik maakten van de mogelijkheid om reserves “vast te klikken” in kapitaal met het oog op een latere belastingvrije uitkering, maar die in de ogen van de fiscus die regeling toepasten in situaties waarvoor ze niet bedoeld was.....lees meer
 
website door webalive