VAT & BITCOIN - State of Art

[Capaccioli]

My last article on Durham European Law Institute Blog.

http://delilawblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/vat-bitcoin-are-bitcoin-exchange-transactions-exempt-from-the-vat-directive/

Stefano Capaccioli
www.coinlex.it

[Swordsoffreedom]

This looks a bit interesting thanks for the read.
Was initially thinking it was about trading art using bitcoins and how auction fees would be decided.
But after reading it's an interesting question and I agree with your interpretation.

Bitcoin does not have an intrinsic value, it is a mean of payment, it does not contain any added value and it circulates as a security. Therefore, the inclusion of bitcoin under exemption of Article 135.1 letter f), is consistent with the purpose of the VAT exemption of financial services.

[gbooz]

My last article on Durham European Law Institute Blog.

http[Suspicious link removed]mpt-from-the-vat-directive/

Stefano Capaccioli
www.coinlex.it

Very interesting - thank you for the article. Just to make it clear: Estonia and Poland already regulating bitcoin tax issues but Sweden not yet if I understood correctly?

[gbooz]

My last article on Durham European Law Institute Blog.

http[Suspicious link removed]mpt-from-the-vat-directive/

Stefano Capaccioli
www.coinlex.it

I also would like to clarify: "The Swedish Supreme Court considered the case and resolved that the Court of Justice has not considered how Article 135.1 d, e, f of the Directive 2006/112/EC must be interpreted with respect to foreign exchange transactions related to virtual currencies". Is it means that "the Court of Justice was asked by the Swedish Supreme Court but not considered" or "the Court of Justice not considered it because it was no request"?

[Capaccioli]

Some Answers:
1. Poland and Estonia Tax Authorities have interpetations on VAT taxation on bitcoins. However, under European Law, Judgements of CJEU are compulsory for Member States.
2. Sweden arose the case in CJEU.
3. CJEU has not analyzed (till now) VAT exemption for virtual currencies.
4. The CJUE will analyze the case C-264/14 and will decide about interpetation of 135.1 on virtual currencies

Stefano Capaccioli
www.coinlex.it

[gbooz]

Some Answers:
1. Poland and Estonia Tax Authorities have interpetations on VAT taxation on bitcoins. However, under European Law, Judgements of CJEU are compulsory for Member States.
2. Sweden arose the case in CJEU.
3. CJEU has not analyzed (till now) VAT exemption for virtual currencies.
4. The CJUE will analyze the case C-264/14 and will decide about interpetation of 135.1 on virtual currencies

Stefano Capaccioli
www.coinlex.it

It will be important decision of the CJUE, which will have major impact on BTC ecosystem. Let's wait and see. Thank you for the info.

[gbooz]

I also read in "Forbes" online some time ago (1/17/2014), that for British tax and investment purposes, vouchers have a monetary face value. If you sell vouchers at or below their monetary value, no value added tax (VAT) is due. Depending, however, on the redemption value, the transaction is subject to VAT on all or part of the value. When it comes to Bitcoin, if it’s treated as a face-value voucher to buy goods and services, it would be subject to full VAT on the value of the Bitcoin sold. Under this tax treatment, about 20% VAT would be charged each time Bitcoins were used. That level and scale of taxation was said to be killing off the Bitcoin market in the UK.

[Capaccioli]

Bitcoin are not vouchers (was the first intepretation in the UK with a speech). British Tax is Brief 09/14.
I do not utilize in my articles news and intepretation of newspapers and/or various websites, but only official intepretations by tax authorities and the laws, because speeches, opinions and web articles could be  useless facing a tax audit.

[gbooz]

Bitcoin are not vouchers (was the first intepretation in the UK with a speech). British Tax is Brief 09/14.
I do not utilize in my articles news and intepretation of newspapers and/or various websites, but only official intepretations by tax authorities and the laws, because speeches, opinions and web articles could be  useless facing a tax audit.

Actually "Forbes" was quoting HM Revenue & Customs spokesmen. But never mind.