A reduced VAT rate can apply to works of art. The definition of art which is used for this beneficial treatment, can differ from the definition of art which experts use. This is particularly the case when regarding photographs. The central question in this article is to whether this different view can be based on inherent characteristics of VAT as the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) claims. In order to answer this question, the article will start with a short overview of the benefits for works of art, followed by the definitions used for customs duties and VAT. The core part of this article includes an analysis of the case law applying these definitions to photographs: the 1989 Raab case and the 2019 Regards case.
__Inleiding__: BTW fraude ' "Heb je de bon nodig?" Iedereen die weleens klusbedrijven over de vloer krijgt, kent die vraag. Zelf heb ik nog niet zo heel lang een eigen huis, en de eerste keer antwoordde ik in mijn naïviteit: "De bon eh nou waaróm?" Waarop de schilder/timmerman geroutineerd toehapte: "Kijk, dan ken ik een mooi prijsje voor je maken".' Christiaan Weijts, 'Fraudeursdromen', NRC Handelsblad 23 Oktober 2012. BTW fraude is een reëel probleem, niet alleen in Nederland en Europa, maar ook elders in de wereld. In mei 2013 constateerde de Europese Commissie dat de lidstaten niet meer dan de helft van hun potentiële btw-opbrengsten innen. Dit wordt ook wel VAT gap genoemd. Belastingontduiking erodeert niet alleen de opbrengsten van de overheid, het ondermijnt ook de beginselen op grond waarvan de overheidsuitgaven over inwoners van een land worden verdeeld. Belastingontduikers zijn free riders: ze willen wel van de overheidsuitgaven profiteren, maar niet aan de overheidsinkomsten bijdragen. Dit bedreigt de democratisch tot stand gekomen verdeling van belastingdruk in een land. Zowel vanuit een economisch als juridisch (rechtvaardigheids-) oogpunt is belastingontduiking daarom ongewenst. Het is derhalve logisch dat overheden belastingontduiking proberen te bestrijden.
Introduction Since the end of the 20th century, ex-post evaluation of tax legislation has consistently been part of the agenda of the Dutch government. In 2005, the 2001 Income tax Act was evaluated. In addition, several tax expenditures are evaluated each year. Tax expenditures can be a controversial aspect of tax legislation. In general, tax expenditures have the drawback that, compared with direct subsidies, there is less information and less democratic control on these expenditures than on direct subsidies which are accounted for in the annual budget. In the past 20 years, the Netherlands has taken several measures to improve the accountability of tax expenditures. One of the measures in the 2001 Budget was the introduction of a framework consisting of several questions which have to be answered before a tax expenditure can be introduced. This framework has been amended several times. The current framework consists of the following questions: (1) Is the problem clear?; (2) Is the object stated clearly and unambiguously?; (3) Can it be proven why financial intervention is necessary?; (4) Can it be proven why a subsidy is preferred over a levy?; (5) Can it be proven why a tax incentive is preferred over a direct subsidy?; and (6) Is the evaluation of the provision sufficiently safeguarded? An evaluation of a proposed tax expenditure, therefore, has to be guaranteed before the tax expenditure is introduced. Below, the Dutch techniques for ex-post evaluation are discussed briefly. These include accounting for tax expenditures and similar provisions in a tax expenditure report and a tax expenditure overview, evaluation reports and, possibly, sunset legislation.
Charities as such are not mentioned in the VAT Directive. However, the Directive contains "exemptions for certain activities in the public interest" and most of those activities are deemed charitable in many Member States, such as activities in the framework of medical care, welfare and social security work, education, religion, sports, and culture. In this article, the author gives an overview of the legal history of the EU VAT exemptions and discusses the position of charities whose activities may be within or outside the scope of VAT. In view of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of these VAT exemptions, the author discusses alternative approaches, and points to developments that may affect the VAT position of charities in the future.
Governments both in developed and developing countries are facing the problem of value added tax (VAT) and retail sales tax (RST) evasion. This explains a growing interest in policies alternative to the traditional methods of deterrence. This paper describes the achievements resulting from a zero cost policy against VAT and RST evasion based on rewards. Customers are encouraged to request an invoice by changing the invoice into a lottery ticket, thereby making VAT and RST fraud and evasion more difficult for suppliers. Such a policy has, for example, been introduced in some Asian countries. After having characterized VAT and RST evasion as a special kind of public good situation, a theoretical explanation based on behavioral Economics models of the success empirically registered by this policy will be discussed. Given this theoretical framework, we then introduce an empirical test in order to verify the ex-ante applicability of the policy described in different socio-economic contexts. Finally we discuss the possible countervailing effects as well as the positive long-term side-effects of the introduction of the policy.
I. Introduction It has been a great pleasure for the authors to be able to prepare a report on the Netherlands regarding "The mutual assistance in tax affairs", which topic will be discussed at the EATLP annual meeting in June 2009 in Santiago de Compostella. The report has been limited by us to such mutual assistance between the Member States of the European Union. The report is based on the general guidelines as prepared by our German colleague Prof. Dr Roman Seer of Bochum University. The questions and answers are focussed onthe five main topics "Implementation", "Use", "Efficiency", "Burden of proof" and "Legal protection". Since the focus is on the actual use of mutual assistance in the different Member States, the report is rather factually and practically oriented. We did however, occasionally point at more in depth discussions and unclarities in this area. .
