Are fundraising dinners VAT-liable? We clear up the exemption for charitable support

When a VAT-exempted society decides to host an event for the purpose of raising funds, such as a fundraising dinner, it was often uncertain as to whether the event was exempt from VAT. In the wake of a legislative amendment in 2016 a circular has now been released to clear up matters.

Introduction
The VAT Code contains an exemption for the delivery of goods and services provided by specified social and cultural bodies related to their activities in order to gain funding. This exemption was introduced in order to stop VAT from becoming an obstacle to fundraising in terms of the price increase, which would hinder these institutions from gathering further resources.

But in spite of the good intentions that underlay this exemption, in practice its effect was often overshadowed by the foggy conditions for applying it, such as the notion of non-distortion of competition. These were the reasons why the proper use of the exemption was frequently a complicated matter. The amendment to the law and the subsequent clarifying government circular was an attempt to tackle these issues.

The legislative amendment of 27 June 2016
he first step towards sorting things out was in the Law of 27 June 2016, in which the existing exemption under article 44.2.12 of the VAT Code was amended. While the amendment’s intention was to clarify the exemption, the actual application – in particular the concept of distortion of competition – remained murky.

Next up: a clarifying circular
In order to deal with this, less than a year after the legislative amendment an administrative circular was published that contained the three cumulative conditions that must be met for an institution to be eligible for exemption (Circular 2017/C/23 dd. 19 April 2017).

Condition 1: The institution must be the organiser of the event
The exemption can be invoked by those institutions listed in article 44.2.12 of the VAT Code when they themselves act as the actual organiser of the event. According to the circular, this implies that they must have full responsibility for all organisational aspects, such as the programme, the set-up and the activities of the event, collecting the takings, doing the PR, etc. The circular does not explicitly answer the question of to what extent, if at all, certain part-activities can be outsourced to others.

A possible response can be found in Administrative Ruling no. E.T. 21326 dated 04-01-1977, in which the term organiser is further explained within the scope of the exemption for hosting talks (article 44.2.8 of the VAT Code). In this context the organiser must state the theme, determine the price, find the speakers and also act as the responsible organiser in the eyes of the audience (for example, the organiser must be identified on the programme and posters). But subcontractors can be used for certain technical or material services.

In line with the above, it appears that the authors of the law intended for the institution to take control itself and make all the most important decisions in terms of organising the event (including the type of event, the admission fee, fringe activities, etc). If subcontractors are used for a substantial proportion of the organisation, the taxman could challenge the application of the VAT exemption.

For example, an exempted youth movement which holds an annual fundraising dinner would have to find a location itself, purchase the beverages, generate publicity, and so on. When it outsources certain parts of the work (such as erecting the tent or the DJ) but still handles the PR, bartending duties, compiling the programme and other matters, we cannot see this as a factor that would disallow the youth movement from calling itself the ‘organiser’. On the other hand, when an event is wholly outsourced to an events company, then we do not believe the youth movement can still be considered the organiser. However we shall have to wait and see how strict the tax authorities will be in assessing these matters in practice.

Condition 2: Activities may only be of an intermittent nature
The fundraising activities cannot constitute an economic activity of the taxpayer. Specifically, the circular states that the activities:

  • May only be of an intermittent nature;
  • Must be intended for raising funds for the usual exempted activities of the institution;
  • Must be organised exclusively for the benefit of the institution or must be employed for a good cause. A good cause is considered to be any institution, society, fund or natural person that, irrespective of whether or not they are accredited, works on a project or for healthcare, welfare, culture, the environment or international aid, without a commercial object.

If, for example, a museum runs a shop, then it will only be exempted for organising events where the proceeds are used exclusively for running the museum itself or for a good cause (and not for the running of the shop). This is why it is very important that the appropriation of the proceeds is properly documented. One matter that remains unclear is whether the organised event can be themed around the actual objective of the institution (so, can an exempted sports club host a sports event?). One could infer from the phrasing of the circular, which asserts that the activities cannot constitute an economic activity of the taxpayer, that the organised activities cannot be of the same nature as the principal activity of the institution. But one could also interpret that phrasing in the sense that they cannot be a regular occurrence. In our opinion it is the latter interpretation that holds. 

Condition 3: No distortion of competition
Finally, the organised activity may not result in the distortion of competition with other economic actors that perform similar activities. The definition of distortion of competition remains vague in the circular – the activities may only generate exceptional revenue, they cannot constitute an actual separate economic activity and they may only focus on facilitating the institution’s achievement of its objective. The actual turnover generated is of no concern whatsoever.In this manner the circular does provide greater clarity: large sums of revenue, insofar as they remain exceptional, are not an obstacle when it comes to applying the exemption.

A concession from the authorities: no distortion of competition
As an act of toleration, distortion of competition is deemed not to exist if the event is hosted no more than four times a year. Moreover, the event may not last longer than three consecutive days (such as on a long weekend). When that threshold of four events is exceeded, then one must inform the relevant VAT inspection office, which will then rule on whether distortion of competition is at issue. They do not mind if the number of events incidentally exceeds four, but what exactly is deemed to be ‘incidental’ is not said. If it is established that distortion of competition is at issue, then VAT will be payable as of the first quarter after that number of events was exceeded. The event that caused the institution to cross the threshold remains exempted. The obligation to pay VAT on these activities will remain in place for at least a year, after which one can re-apply for VAT exemption by means of a motivated application. For the application of the administrative exemption over time, the number of events hosted since 1 January 2017 is assessed.

Conclusion
While the circular makes things clearer in respect of a number of important points, some questions remain unanswered. The greatest merit of the circular lies in the fact that it states that distortion of competition is not at issue when no more than four events are organised in a year. It remains unfortunate that a clearer positive definition of ‘distortion of competition’ was not included. So we shall have to wait and see what happens in practice.

Valuation of usufruct
Now also a witch hunt when usufruct is sold?
In previous editions, we have already written about the valuation of usufruct when purchasing property, but recently there have also been regular reports of checks on the valuation of usufruct when reselling. However, up until now, the case law has followed the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Brief description For several years, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the valuation of usufruc
Vlabel is using conciliatory language
Has the decrease in Flemish sales duty led to an increase in the costs for purchases of usufruct?
The decrease in sales duty: also for split purchase usufruct-bare ownership The recent drop in the rate (to 7.00%) for purchases of family homes comes with a number of conditions. For example, the purchaser must be a natural person. Following some uncertainty, it was subsequently confirmed that, in the event of a split purchase of such a property by a company for the usufruct and the bare owner f
The labour market of the future
Earn (on the side) flexibly and untaxed
There are three legal social statuses in Belgium, (i) employee, (ii) self-employed and (iii) civil servant. However, the question is often asked whether these classifications are still relevant to the rapidly evolving labour market in which flexibility is key and many people opt for a 'freelance status' or wish to combine several statuses. Voka has already called for a debate on the labour mark
Is there a notification requirement for your organisation?
Well begun is half done: Prepare your organisation for the go-live of the UBO register.
The register of ultimate beneficiaries (the "UBO register") will go live on 31 October 2018. In one of our previous newsletters we presented an overview of the general framework of the UBO register. The Royal Decree of 30 July 2018, published in the Belgian Official Journal of 14 September 2018, explains this register in detail. We’ve reviewed what your organisation needs to take into account.&n
One of the action points of the ATAD Directive
Impact of the implementation of the Belgian CFC legislation: the de facto tightening of transfer pricing rules?
From 1 January 2019 (fiscal year 2020), the newly introduced CFC rule will come into effect in Belgium, due to the implementation of the ATAD directive1. This new legislation must be interpreted within the broader framework of the Summer Agreement and the reforms within Belgian corporate taxation, which, like the CFC legislation, have resulted in part from the heavily discussed implementation of t
Brexit, e-commerce & VAT action plan are discussed
Pending changes in the area of international VAT
In the previous edition we discussed the expected changes in terms of VAT at a national level. In this article we will briefly consider the VAT changes that are expected internationally.                Brexit  In principle, on 30 March 2019, the ‘Brexit’ will finally be a reality. The United Kingdom will no lon
Limited number of legal entity types
Help, soon my legal entity type will no longer exist!
The WVV ("CAC") is on its way On 4 June 2018, the "draft legislation introducing the Companies and Associations Code" was filed in the Chamber, marking one of the most far-reaching corporate law reforms since the introduction of the coordinated laws on commercial companies on 30 November 1935. This extensive reform of corporate law corresponds with the introduction of the “Companies and Asso
A brief summary
What should be expected in relation to (national) VAT?
Despite the fact that many of us are still in summer (holiday) mode, this article is going to focus on the VAT changes that we could expect in the not-too-distant future. It will provide a brief summary. For a more in-depth examination, you can always contact our VAT team.  Vouchers (1 January 2019)  In June 2016, Europe set out the VAT process for vouchers (Directive (EU)2016/1065 o
The FAQ contains no fewer than thirty-one questions
FAQ published regarding the Innovation Income Deduction (IID)
On 26 July 2018, the FPS Finance used Fisconet - you can registrate for free to consult the list of FAQ - to publish the long-awaited list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding the Innovation Income Deduction. Since the law of 9 February 2017, introducing the Innovation Income Deduction, there now follows the first additional comments concerning the legal provisions of Art. 20
Depends on the nature and frequency of the violation
Fine levels set for non-compliance with transfer pricing documentation obligation
From tax year 2017 and, more specifically, the implementation of the mandatory transfer pricing documentation obligation, there was an immediate indication that, from a second violation of non-compliance with the transfer pricing obligations, a fine of between 1,250 EUR and 25,000 EUR (Article 445, §3 Income Tax Code 1992) could be imposed. The scales of the administrative fines and their appl

Subscribe to our newsletter