The Federal Fiscal Court recently changed its case law on the taxation of supervisory board members in the case of fixed remuneration. Now, the Tax Court of Lower Saxony has handed down a decision on a case involving the chairman of a board of directors of a professional pension fund who received a variable form of remuneration. The tax court held that the Plaintiff's activities were outside the scope of VAT. The decision shows that, even in the case of variable remuneration, the activities of members of a collegial body may be outside the scope of VAT. The decision is of interest not only to members of boards of directors, but also to all members of collective bodies, such as members of supervisory boards or even management boards.

The grand coalition has agreed on an economic stimulus package to cushion the economic consequences of the Corona crisis. As part of this package, VAT rates are to be reduced from 19% to 16% and from 7% to 5% for six months from 1 July. In addition, the due date for import VAT is to be extended by 10 days. The VAT rate cut is perhaps primarily just an economic stimulus package for tax advisors. There may now be a purchase premium for everything and not just for cars. However, the administrative burden, especially the necessary changes in IT systems for this short period will, for most companies, be considerable. In times of “short-time work” (Kurzarbeit) and vacation season, the implementation will certainly also present itself as a significant challenge. It will also be interesting to observe whether the legislative procedure, an administrative circular that is to be hoped for and the change of forms and systems on the side of the administration, can be realised in the short amount of time available.

Fixed establishments and their requirements are a constant source of questions referred to the ECJ. In practice, it is often not easy to determine whether a fixed establishment exists. The ECJ has previously dealt with the issue of whether a subsidiary can also constitute a fixed establishment of its foreign parent company (C-260/95 - DFDS, C-318/111 - Daimler AG). In the current Dong Yang case (C-547/18), the ECJ was required to concern itself with this question once again.