EUDTG Newsletter March – April 2017

EU direct tax law is a fast developing area. This presents taxpayers, in particular groups and multinational corporations that have an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) presence, with various challenges.

The following topics are covered in this issue of EU Tax News:

CJEU Cases

  • Belgium: CJEU judgment on interpretation of the subject-to-tax requirement of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive: Wereldhave
  • Belgium: AG Opinion on interest deduction limitation in light of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive: Argenta
  • Germany: CJEU referral on the German CFC rules: X

National Developments

  • Belgium: Supreme Court does not allow withholding tax refunds for dividends received by investment companies before 12 June 2003
  • Belgium: CJEU referral by the Commission of Belgium over the discriminatory tax treatment of foreign real estate income
  • Finland: Supreme Administrative Court confirms tax treatment of dividend income from third countries to be in line with Articles 63 and 65 TFEU
  • Italy: Amendments to the NID and Patent Box Regime
  • Norway: Government’s response to ESA’s decision on the compatibility of the Norwegian interest limitation rules with the freedom of establishment
  • Poland: Supreme Administrative Court judgment on the settlement of foreign branch losses
  • Spain: Supreme Court judgment on State aid recovery procedure
  • United Kingdom: England and Wales High Court judgment regarding repayment of stamp duty reserve tax: Jazztel plc v The Commissioners for HMRC
  • United Kingdom: The Great Repeal Bill White Paper

EU Developments

  • EU: European Parliament clears way for formal adoption of ATAD II by the ECOFIN Council
  • EU: Update on EU proposal for public country-by-country reporting
  • EU: Council adopts conclusions on EU relations with the Swiss Confederation
  • EU: Informal ECOFIN Council held in Malta in early April

Fiscal State aid

  • Greece: CJEU judgment on State aid implemented by Greece: Ellinikos Chrysos AE
  • Italy: CJEU judgment on Italian bankruptcy procedure: Marco Identi

Read the full newsletter here.

This EU Tax Newsletter is prepared by members of PwC’s international EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG).

Further information about our service offerings in EU taxes: www.pwc.com/eudtg

Event series − VAT in ERP systems: how does it challenge IT, the Tax Administration and tax experts?

Register Online to our upcoming series of events on VAT in ERP systems: how does it challenge IT, the Tax Administration and tax experts?

ERP systems are often not equipped to handle the complex requirements of VAT correctly, flexibly and efficiently without extra work or manual intervention.

The legal requirements are constantly changing, and on the basis of the OECD guidelines many countries are exchanging data or demanding evermore detailed information from taxpayers. Organisations are well on the way to transparency.

At these events we’ll be discussing the views of our clients, looking at the different needs of the IT and tax functions, and finally sharing some insights from the Tax Administration.

The aim of the events is to talk about experiences and needs, learn from each other, and build ‘best practice’ together. If required this dialogue can be continued afterwards within our “ITX ERP Support Community”. In the beginning, the questions and the coordination of the same language in the cooperation of the tax and IT department are at the company’s disposal. Our discussions will revolve around the issues that organisations face and creating a common language enabling the tax and IT functions to work together.

Have we piqued your interest? We look forward to welcoming you to one of our discussions.

The dates are planned as follows:

Zurich

  • Wednesday, 31 May 2017, 4.30 pm registration / welcome drink
  • 5.00 pm start, 6.00 pm end, followed by an apéro and individual discussions and questions
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Birchstrasse 160, 8050 Zurich

Berne

  • Tuesday, 6 June 2017, 4.30 pm registration / welcome drink
  • 5.00 pm start, 6.00 pm end, followed by an apéro and individual discussions and questions
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Bahnhofplatz 10, 3001 Berne

Geneva

  • Thursday, 15 June 2017, 4.30 pm registration / welcome drink
  • 5.00 pm start, 6.00 pm end, followed by an apéro and individual discussions and questions
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, Avenue Giuseppe-Motta 50, 1211 Geneva
  • This event takes place in English. To discuss your questions, local PwC colleagues will be at your disposal

Basel

  • Thursday, 22 June 2017, 4.30 pm registration / welcome drink
  • 5.00 pm start, 6.00 pm end, followed by an apéro and individual discussions and questions
  • PricewaterhouseCoopers AG, St.Jakobs-Strasse 25, 4002 Basel

The detailed programme has been published on our website www.pwc.ch/vat-erp. We are looking forward to your registration.

If you have any questions, please get in touch with your usual PwC contact person or one of the experts below

Your contacts

Ilona Paakkala
Director
ITX Technology Leader
Tel. +41 58 792 42 58
paakkala.ilona@ch.pwc.com

Sandra Wirz
Senior Manager
ITX ERP Support Responsible
Tel. +41 58 792 25 32
sandra.wirz@ch.pwc.com

EUDTG Newsletter January – February 2017

EU direct tax law is a fast developing area. This presents taxpayers, in particular groups and multinational corporations that have an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) presence, with various challenges.

The following topics are covered in this issue of EU Tax News:

CJEU Cases

  • Netherlands: CJEU judgment on pro-rata personal deductions for non-resident taxpayers: X
  • Netherlands:  CJEU judgment on the application of Article 64 (1) TFEU concerning the extended recovery period for foreign assets: X

    National Developments
  • Belgium: New Innovation Income Deduction replaces the Patent Income Deduction
  • Finland: Supreme Administrative Court confirms withholding tax treatment for non-UCITS and non-listed Maltese SICAV
  • Hungary:  Hungarian implementation of ATAD’s CFC rules
  • Italy: Italian Tax Court of First Instance judgment on the compatibility of withholding tax levied on dividends distributed to a US pension fund with EU law
  • Sweden: Swedish Supreme Administrative Court judgments on the denial of refund of Swedish withholding tax
  • Switzerland: Corporate Tax Reform III rejected by the Swiss voters
  • United Kingdom: Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Miller and another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

EU Developments

  • EU: ECOFIN Council agreement on ATAD II
  • EU: European Parliament Resolution of 14 February 2017 on the annual report on EU competition policy
  • EU: Public CBCR: European Parliament’s joint ECON & JURI Committee issues draft report
  • EU: EU Member States send letter to non-EU 92 countries in context of common EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions
  • Spain European Commission requests Spain to amend its law implementing reporting obligations for certain assets located outside of Spain

Fiscal State aid

  • Luxembourg: Non-confidential version of the European Commission’s State aid opening decision in GDF Suez
  • Spain: AG Opinion on tax exemptions for Church-run schools

Read the full newsletter here.

This EU Tax Newsletter is prepared by members of PwC’s international EU Direct Tax Group (EUDTG).

Further information about our service offerings in EU taxes: www.pwc.com/eudtg

Legal certainty concerning import value in Switzerland reestablished – Assessment of 100 million swiftly overruled by the Federal Supreme Court

In understanding of the business impacts, the Federal Supreme Court clarified the uncertainty on determination of the import VAT value for foreign companies involved in supplies of goods to Switzerland resulting from the recent decision of the Federal Administrative Court.
Click here to download the PDF

Background

A., a purchasing company of C. group established outside of Switzerland, however registered for Swiss VAT purposes, was acquiring goods from foreign third party suppliers. The goods were shipped to a Swiss warehouse of A. from where those were subsequently sold to C. (a Swiss established and VAT registered distribution company of the C. group), or other third party customers.

For customs clearance, the import value of the goods declared by A. was based on the price invoiced by the foreign suppliers to A. (i.e. on the purchase price). Further to their investigation, the Swiss Federal Customs Authorities (“SFCA”) claimed that A. underestimated the import VAT base, which should have been the sales price to C. minus 10%.
Click here to download the PDF
In the first instance, the Federal Administrative Court (“FAC”) also denied determination of the import VAT value of the goods based on the price paid by the (foreign) importer to its foreign suppliers and supported the post-assessment of the SFCA of 100 mio CHF import VAT and almost 1 mio late interests. The position of the Court was held on slightly different grounds than the one of SFCA. The FAC ruled that (i) the transaction with foreign suppliers occurred already abroad as the importer had the power to dispose of the goods abroad since he was in charge of the transport of goods to Switzerland and therefore the purchase price paid by A. should not have been determinant for the import value, and (ii) it should have then been the market value, which however in the view of FAC corresponded to the value paid by the final Swiss customer to third party suppliers minus 10%. Thus in practice, FAC actually accepted for the case at hand that the value should have been the sales price to C. minus 10%, which was the original position of SFCA.

Decision of the Federal Supreme Court

The Federal Supreme Court (“FSC”) overruled in its decision 2C_1079/2016 issued on 7. March 2017, the decision of the FAC. In this surprisingly short period after the first instance decision, FSC held that the transaction relevant for the determination of the import VAT value is the transaction which led to the import, i.e. the price paid by A. to its foreign suppliers and clearly not the market value related to the subsequent transaction with C, as at the moment of the import the contract with the final customer was not yet in place.

Click here to download the PDF

The FSC ruled that the fact who is the person in charge of the transport (i.e. supplier v. importer) has no impact on identifying the transaction relevant to determine the import VAT value of goods. Indeed, the FSC considered that the import value should be based on the agreement which gave rise to the transaction leading to import and that the transport is only a modality of the execution of the agreement.

The Court also considered that the characteristic feature of the purchase was the acquisition of goods abroad intended for sale in Switzerland and therefore the final destination was already known at the time of purchase from A to their suppliers. Consequently, based on article 54, al.1, let. a of the Swiss VAT law which provides that import value is the consideration where goods are imported under sales or commission agreement (and not the market value), the Court ruled that such consideration is the purchase price paid by A. to its foreign suppliers.

This decision removes the uncertainty resulting from the previous position of Customs Authorities in this case and following decision of the FAC, and confirms our standpoint on this subject matter. Fortunately, the Federal Supreme Court brought back the clarity into operations of many businesses, which is not only in line with the Swiss VAT law but also with the international standards. The FSC decision removes a certain inequality between foreign and Swiss based importers and gives necessary comfort to (foreign) companies involved in similar supply chain scenarios for the purpose of their customs reporting obligations. Companies importing goods in Switzerland for further sale via their local stock should ensure that their reporting is in line with this final decision of the FSC. The federal customs, as well as tax authorities will now need to review their practice and amend written guidelines in order to align with the legal grounds.

Download the PDF by clicking the image below:
Click here to download the PDF

 

Please contact our team for more details:
Patricia More, Partner, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
patricia.more@ch.pwc.com / +41 58 792 95 07

Christina Haas Bruni, Senior Manager Customs & VAT, PwC Basel
christina.haas.bruni@ch.pwc.com / +41 58 792 51 24

Kristyna Kaniova, Manager, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
kristyna.kaniova@ch.pwc.com / +41 58 792 92 34

Hans-Frederic Andersen, Senior Consultant, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
andersen.hans-frederic@ch.pwc.com / +41 58 792 91 97

Changes to legislation governing Swiss VAT liability

Swiss VAT law places new obligations on foreign companies

The partial amendment to the Federal Law on Value Added Tax (VAT law) will impact companies not established in Switzerland from 1 January 2018. Businesses which are not based in Switzerland but provide supplies vis-a-vis Switzerland may be liable to pay Swiss VAT. This will apply in instances where a foreign company generates turnover in Switzerland, in other words in cases where Switzerland is the place of supply for the purposes of VAT. The following information outlines the VAT situation in Switzerland today and in the near future.


Download the full report here.

If you have any questions, please get in touch your usual PwC contact person or our expert

Julia Sailer
Director
Leader VAT compliance Switzerland
Tel. +41 58 792 44 57
julia.sailer@ch.pwc.com

Additional Languages for this report

German
French
Italian

Fixed establishment: Welmory – A never ending story

The Supreme Administrative Court in Poland ruled yesterday on the Welmory case. Even though the case went through Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, C-605/12) back to the final instance in Poland – nothing seems certain whatsoever. Many would have expected the court following CJEU argumentation and probably confirming existence of fixed establishment in Poland. This, however, turned out not to be the case.

Click here to download the PDF

Based on oral announcement of the court, both District Administrative Court’s judgement (previous instance) and tax authorities’ decision have been repealed. According to the Supreme Administrative Court the tax authorities must supplement the decision by factual evidences as to whether the technical infrastructure in Poland is actually allowing to claim creation of fixed establishment (FE). The dossier of the case does not include evidences proving existence of FE in Poland, as it seems the tax authorities did not bring forward sufficient investigation in this area. Therefore, in order to preserve the two-instance separation rule, the Supreme Administrative Court cannot judge upon it. In turn, the court decided to return the case back to tax authorities for further investigation.

Such outcome means for Welmory that the proceedings are not over yet. It raises a question of taxpayer’s rights in light of extensive timing of proceedings. As the original decision reaches as far as 2011 and the ultimate conclusion still being remote, one can question the quality of protection of taxpayer’s right to certainty of law.

Even though at first glance it may feel disappointing that the verdict was not rendered as per the principles of when a fixed establishment is being created, but focused on procedural deficiencies – it actually brings new perspective into the whole area. The aspect of evidences and proving existence of sufficient infrastructure.

In light of the developments in Poland it may be sensible to anticipate any potential fixed establishment discussions, by for instance preparing so-called defense file. Comprehensive documentation outlining factually the existing setup, aligned with global tax policy and drafted outside of hectic tax audit, can prove helpful. Especially as yesterday’s Welmory judgement brings more emphasis on the need for tax authorities to actually prove sufficient levels of infrastructure to claim existence of a fixed establishment. Such exercise may be particularly valid in industries being more and more part of the Digital Economy, where the brick and mortar physical aspects are taken over by the importance of significant digital presence, remote management and IT infrastructure.

We are looking forward to deeper analysis of our colleagues from PwC Poland, together with whom we are closely monitoring the developments in Poland.

We will keep you updated on the subject matter.

In the meantime, you can contact us for more details and download the PDF here:
Click here to download the PDF

 

Patricia More, Partner, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
patricia.more@ch.pwc.com / +41 58 792 95 07

Bozena Turek, Manager, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
bozena.turek@ch.pwc.com /+41 79 742 54 81

Financial services businesses may not be eligible for the European Cost Sharing exemption – opinion of the Advocate General in DNB Banka (C-326/15) and Aviva (C-605/15)

Summary

The Advocate General (“AG”) issued its opinion on the application of the cost-sharing exemption (“CSE”) provided by article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive in two cases regarding financial services providers (i.e. banks and insurance companies). The opinion of the AG is not in line with the position of the EU Commission and the discussions in various meetings of the VAT Committee in 2010, 2014 and 2015 and it also appears not to be in line with the pending infringement procedures of the EU Commission against Luxembourg (C-274/15) and Germany (C-616/15).

Cost Sharing Exemption

The CSE allows businesses to come together and pool resources as a means of sharing these resources between each other free of VAT (as opposed to procuring services externally with VAT) on the grounds that these resources are directly necessary for the activities of the members of the cost-sharing group. In order to benefit from this exemption, the group needs to consist of entities engaged in VAT-exempt or non-taxable activities and the supplies need to be made by the group to the members at cost.

Currently, the majority of the EU member states allow the application of the CSE to financial services businesses.

Position of the AG

  • The CSE should apply to services supplied by the group to its members and not vice versa (i.e., the contribution of resources by the members of the group to the group (to the pool) is not VAT-exempt).
  • The members eligible for the application of the CSE are companies/bodies acting in the public interest (this excludes financial services businesses).
  • The CSE is only applicable to services supplied between the group and its members established in the same EU member state (i.e., the CSE cannot apply on a cross-border basis).

Potential implications

We anticipate that the impact on the financial services sector will be significant if the Court of Justice of the European Union (“Court”) decides to follow the opinion of the AG. Specifically, the cost of the procurement of services for the benefit of the whole group will be higher (because of irrecoverable VAT). This would mean that financial services businesses would have to consider other available options to manage the VAT costs on the shared services and/or resources. One of the options could be a set-up of a cost-pooling arrangement (cost-contribution arrangement as per chapter VIII of the OECD guidance 2010) to pool resources that are mutually beneficial for all participants and to share the costs of the benefits that each participant derives from the pool. Another option could be to undertake a detailed review of the services supplied between the members to confirm whether they could benefit from the local VAT exemptions.

For the present, we must wait to see if, and to which extent, the Court agrees with the AG’s opinion. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss the above.

Contacts:

Tobias Meier Kern
Director Indirect Taxes
tobias.meier.kern@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 4369

Marcella Dzienisik
Senior Manager Indirect Taxes
marcella.dzienisik@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 4938

 

Assessment of 100 million due to incorrect import value confirmed by the Swiss court

Companies involved in supplies of goods to Switzerland should check their Swiss customs reporting further to a recent case of the Federal Administrative Court on determination of the import VAT value.

Swiss Federal Court VAT Decision - March 2017

Background

A., a purchasing company of C. group established outside of Switzerland, however registered for Swiss VAT, was acquiring goods from foreign third party suppliers. The goods were shipped to a Swiss warehouse of A from where those were subsequently sold to C. (a Swiss established and VAT registereddistribution company of the C. group), or other third party customers.

Swiss Federal Court VAT Decision - March 2017

For customs clearance, the import value of the goods declared by A. was based on the price invoiced by the foreign suppliers to A. (i.e. on the purchase price). Further to their investigation, the Swiss Federal Customs Authorities (“SFCA”) claimed that A. underestimated the import VAT base, which should have been the sales price to C. minus 10%.

Position of the Federal Administrative Court

The Court held in its decision A-2675/2016 dated 25 October 2016, that the purchase price paid to the foreign suppliers by A. was not relevant to determine the import VAT value. This was due to the fact that the transport from abroad was partially supported by A., which means the latter already abroad had the power to dispose of the goods and therefore the transaction with the foreign suppliers should no longer be relevant to determine the import VAT value. The Court also held that the import value could not be the value of the sale from A. to C. since the transactions were occurring after the import, and storing the goods in the Swiss warehouse of A. The Court then, however concluded that the import value should be the market value that C. would pay.

According to article 54, al.1, let. g of the Swiss VAT law, the market value is the price to be paid to an independent supplier in the country of origin. A. was therefore convinced that the imported value declared was in line with the Swiss VAT law. However, the Court held that the price to be considered is not the one that A. paid to the supplier in the country of origin of the goods, but the price that C. would have paid to third-party suppliers in this country for similar goods. On this ground, and to the extent that the Court considered that it could not be determined which price would be paid by C. in the country of origin, it held that the SFCA were entitled to consider that indeed such price would be the price paid by C. to A. minus 10%, according to deductive method developed in the Swiss Federal Tax Authorities’ guidelines which however do not have binding character. Thus, the initial position of the SFCA was confirmed by the court even though based on different arguments.

This decision resulted in an adjustment of more than CHF 100 million and late payment interest of CHF 924,854 for A.

Swiss Federal Court VAT Decision - March 2017

Outcome

We are of the opinion that neither the position of the Court nor the deductive method developed by the Swiss Federal Tax Authorities in their guidelines are in line with the Swiss VAT law or with the Customs administrative guidelines which only refer to the price paid by the importer in such case.

It could also be inferred from the reasoning of the Court that the deductive method would not be applicable in case exclusively the foreign suppliers would be handling the transport of the goods up until the Swiss warehouse of the recipient.

As the company was fully entitled to deduct input VAT, and due to the fact that customs duties in Switzerland are calculated based on weight of the imported goods, the valuation of the VAT import value had no impact on A’s liability as such. The main impact of the decision is however the late payment interests arising from the adjustment performed by the SFCA which has been confirmed by the Court and do amount to a substansive cost for A.

An appeal has been lodged against the decision, and as the position held by the Federal Administrative Court could be considered as not in line with the Swiss VAT law, we can only hope that the Federal Supreme Court will not confirm this controversial judgement of the Federal Administrative Court.

Recommended action

Companies importing goods from abroad to their Swiss warehouses, from where subsequent sales to Swiss customers are carried out should review their practice in order to assess the potential risk and monitor further developments. Provided that the Federal Supreme Court confirms the position of the SFCA, such businesses would notably be impacted if they are involved in the transport of the goods.

Download the PDF by clicking the image below:

Swiss Federal Court VAT Decision - March 2017

Please contact our team for more details:

Patricia More
Partner, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
patricia.more@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 95 07

Kristyna Kaniova
Manager, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
kristyna.kaniova@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 92 34

Hans-Frederic Andersen
Senior Consultant, Indirect Tax, PwC Geneva
andersen.hans-frederic@ch.pwc.com
+41 58 792 91 97

EU: Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive II (“ATAD II”)

On February 21, 2017, the 28 European Union (EU) Finance Ministers in the ECOFIN Council meeting reached political agreement on the Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 regarding hybrid mismatches with third countries with a view to adopting it (subject to receiving European Parliament’s opinion and legal-linguistic revision).

ATAD II basically adds to the existing ATAD I (adopted in 2016 and effective as of 2019) rules on mismatches with third countries and basically extends the hybrid mismatch definition to also include mismatches resulting from arrangements involving PEs, hybrid transfers, imported mismatches, and reverse hybrid entities. In addition, ATAD II includes rules on tax residency mismatches.

ATAD II still needs to be submitted for formal adoption at a next ECOFIN Council meeting after the European Parliament has formally issued its opinion on the EC proposal, which is currently scheduled for 26 April 2017.

Once formally adopted, EU Member States will need to transpose the provisions by 31 December 2019 and apply them per 1 January 2020. By way of derogation, the specific reverse hybrid entity rule would need to be transposed by 31 December 2021 and applied per 1 January 2022, however payments to reverse hybrids would not be deductible anymore from 1 January 2020.

The further developments in the EU in this regard should be closely monitored as they may potentially have implications for Swiss Finance Branches and Principal Companies.

For more information please find below the newsletter from our EUDTG network.

Download EUDTG newsletter

 

VAT Compliance Tools

The world of VAT and customs reporting is changing rapidly.

As businesses, we’re living in a world, which is becoming increasingly globalised, with the adoption of more and more VAT and other indirect taxes. Tax authorities are requesting more detailed transactional information than ever before – and more quickly. At the same time new technologies are introducing unprecedented methods to track both indirect and direct taxes.

It has now become business critical to keep up to date with your VAT compliance responsibilities and to be ready for more thorough questioning from your tax authorities. The best way to achieve this, we believe, is to embrace the new technologies available.

Here are some quick demonstrations of our key compliance tools. Click on the pictures to launch the selective video. Presentations and additional informations can be found below the videos.

1 VAT reconciliation solutions
PwC has different solutions to help you with VAT/turnover reconciliation, from an automated excel-based solution building on standard ERP VAT reports to an SAP-integrated programme which allows automated reconciliation preparation directly in SAP. An automated solution helps you reduce the manual workflow involved in setting up a VAT/turnover reconciliation in line with Swiss VAT law, and allows you to focus more on the analysis of transactions.vat_reconciliation

Presentation: VAT reconciliation solutions – February 2017, PwC Zurich
– Flyer: Does your ERP System talk ITX?

2. Taxmarc for SAP
Taxmarc is an ‘add on’ to the SAP-system and gives an insight into all the data which is relevant for determining the VAT that is payable or receivable. The system facilitates VAT treatment for each individual transaction.
taxmarc

– Presentation: Taxmarc for SAP – February 2017, PwC Zurich

3. VAT compliance technology
Our STARS compliance and analytics solution enables the automation of indirect tax returns, as well as providing detailed analysis of underlying transactional data. It helps standardise processes, increase efficiency and reduce risk in VAT compliance.
vat_compliance_automation

Presentation: VAT compliance Automation – February 2017, PwC Zurich

4. Customised-Import
Making import data visible with a diagnostic tool: With Customised-Import we can analyse the import data of a company, looking at a variety of aspects of import handling, quantifying savings and risk potential, and making the data visible to different interest groups in an easy and intuitive way.
customised_import

Presentation: Customised-Import – February 2017, PwC Zurich
Flyer: Keep track of your import data

5. Data analytics in indirect tax
The introduction of data analytics for indirect tax by authorities in most EU countries is now an impending reality. To become more efficient and create greater value for the broader business, tax functions need to take a closer look at the data they collect, the technology and processes they use, and rethink their approach to tax data management. PwC data analytics provides a complete view of the VAT risks and the opportunities that arise from using data smartly.

Presentation: Data analytics – February 2017, PwC Zurich
– Learn more about our Webcast on Wednesday, March 8, 2017

6. VAT refunds re-imagined
Businesses operating across borders often incur significant amounts of local VAT on expenses. Global reclaim Assessor (GrA) is a solution that enables the processing of invoices for VAT refund claims in a cost-effective way, helping businesses to recover the VAT paid and to optimise cash flow.