VAT news in brief

The December advance payment for those submitting quarterly returns. 
VAT payers who submit periodic monthly returns are already familiar with the December advance phenomenon, and soon those who submit quarterly returns will also have to keep this requirement in mind. As part of the further simplification of the VAT legislation and administration, the Minister of Finance decided to scrap, as of 1 April 2017, the system of obligatory quarterly advance payments, which was required of those VAT payers who submitted periodic quarterly returns. The idea is that this measure will solve the issue of advance funding for VAT, but you can still pay quarterly advances on a voluntary basis since that date. This means that you can avoid a situation where:

  • at the end of a quarter you are required to pay excessive VAT;
  • and there is a risk that you have used all the payable VAT funds for other purposes.  

However, in order to place those submitting quarterly returns on an equal footing, it was decided that as of this year they would also have to pay a December advance, which must be deposited into the same bank account for Brussels VAT receipts by 24 December, with the usual reference for periodic VAT payments (your VAT number plus two additional figures).  

Whether this means that you must actually pay a given sum into the Belgian State’s bank account will depend on the taxed activities performed/received during the third or fourth quarter. That is because, just like those submitting monthly returns, those submitting quarterly returns can decide for themselves how they calculate this December advance payment.  

The December advance equals the VAT payable during the 1 October to 20 December period.  

Those submitting quarterly returns have two options: they can opt to pay the VAT payable for the 1 October to 20 December period. If you choose this calculation method, then the resultant VAT payable must be filled in in section 91 of the VAT return for the fourth quarter.

  • If the VAT payable for the 1 October to 20 December period is greater than the deductible VAT for that same period, then the difference must be inserted in section 91, and it must be paid by 24 December at the latest.
  • If the VAT payable for the 1 October to 20 December period is less than or equal to the deductible VAT for that same period, then fill in 0.00 EUR in section 91 and no December advance is payable.  

The December advance payment is equal to the VAT paid on the basis of the VAT return for the third quarter. 

The second option for those submitting quarterly returns is to pay the VAT payable on the basis of the VAT return for the third quarter once again as their December advance.

  • If the balance in section 71 of the VAT return for the third quarter is positive, then the same sum must be paid once again by 24 December;
  • If the balance in section 71 of the VAT return for the third quarter is 0.00 EUR or if there is a receivable sum (a VAT refund) in section 72 of the VAT return, then you are not required to pay a December advance to the Belgian State. 

If you select this second calculation method, a sum does not have to be entered into section 91 of the VAT return for the fourth quarter. So those who submit quarterly returns can, just like their monthly counterparts, perform the calculation themselves and see which method for the December advance is most advantageous in terms of cash flow. The advance paid is then offset against the balance of the VAT return payable for the fourth quarter, which must be submitted by 20 January of the following year. It is best to diarise the December advance now so that the payment (where applicable) is not forgotten and you find yourself paying interest.  

In the end, no optional VAT system for property leasing. 
It was announced in the government’s summer agreement that an optional system would be introduced in 2018 for subjecting the rental of property to professionals to VAT. In an earlier article we stated that this measure could consequently offer a future alternative  for avoiding the loss of a VAT deduction when, for example, a property company purchases or builds real estate for the purpose of making it available to an operating company that performs its economic activity on those premises (How the Summer Agreement affects VAT groups. 

But on 23 October we learned that the government had, for both budgetary and other reasons, decided that weekend to quit the introduction of this optional VAT system for property leasing – a move we find extremely regrettable. This means that, as opposed to what was initially announced, it will not be possible to choose, under certain conditions, to subject property rentals to professionals to VAT as of 1 January 2018. To make property leasing subject to VAT (and thus to be able to exercise the right to deduct VAT on costs incurred with respect to that property), you will have to continue using the options already available, such as creating a VAT group or financial leasing.

However, a new government circular is currently being prepared that will specifically provide for making the VAT regime for renting out warehouse space more flexible. That is because to date the taxman has been of the opinion that renting out storage space can only be VAT liable if the building is used solely as storage space (even though case law has frequently called the VAT authorities to order in this respect). Nevertheless, administrative tolerance applies when no more than 10% of the area of this warehousing space is used as an office by those persons tasked with managing the stored goods.

This so-called 10% rule will be scrapped as of 1 January 2018 and replaced by a 50% rule. So when office space is rented out as part of a warehouse, the rental could still be subject to VAT in its entirety when the area or the volume of offices makes up less than 50% of the total area or volume of the building (and can thus result in a right to deduct input tax on the part of the lessor). At the time of going to print the circular had not yet been published, but we will let you know as soon as it appears on Fisconet.   

Clarity from the VAT authorities – penalties resulting from delays in performing agreements qualify as damages. 
In a recent government circular dated 25 October 2017, the VAT authorities highlighted the fact that those sums paid in the form of damages as a result of the tardy performance of agreements constitute ‘damages due to delays’ and consequently do not affect the yardstick for taxing the agreed-to transaction. It is a regular occurrence in, for example, the construction industry that the contractor is required to pay a specific sum recorded in the contract because the performance of the work has been delayed. In practice that sum is deducted from the agreed-to price that the client pays to the contractor.  

The taxman has now underscored the fact that this ‘compensated deduction’ cannot be considered as a price discount on the transaction originally agreed to, which can be deducted from the original yardstick for determining the levy and means that less VAT is payable. In reality it is considered to be damages, which fall outside the scope of VAT and do not affect the yardstick for taxation that was originally agreed to. Let’s say that the agreed-to price is 1,000.00 EUR (excluding VAT) and the penalty for delayed performance is 10%. In practice the client would then pay 1,110.00 EUR to the contractor (1,000.00 EUR + 210.00 EUR VAT – 100.00 EUR default penalty). However the VAT payable and to be surrendered to the Belgian State remains 210.00 EUR.  

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