Tax Professional usually responds in minutes
Our tax advisers are all verified
Unlimited follow-up questions
The California State Assembly took a significant step by incorporating a digital advertising tax into legislation with A.B. 2829, an act initially focused on property tax.
This amendment, effective from 1 January 2025, positions California alongside Maryland as states pioneering the taxation of digital advertisements, although it simultaneously steers them into contentious legal waters.
A.B. 2829 sets a flat tax rate of 5% on the gross revenues generated from digital advertising services within California. This contrasts with Maryland’s variable tax rate but maintains the threshold for applicability to entities boasting at least $100 million in global annual gross revenue.
The bill adopts a broad definition of “digital advertising services” akin to Maryland’s, encompassing various forms of digital advertisements such as banner ads, search engine advertising, and more. It also mirrors Maryland’s exclusion of services on platforms owned by broadcast or news media entities.
Reflecting on the Maryland precedent, the California proposal is anticipated to face legal challenges under several constitutional grounds, including potential violations of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, and First Amendment.
Similar to Maryland’s approach, the bill seeks to prevent companies from directly transferring the tax burden onto customers purchasing digital advertising services through separate fees or surcharges.
This aspect is currently a point of litigation in Maryland, suggesting a likely battleground for California’s proposal as well.
The adoption of A.B. 2829 signals California’s intent to tap into the lucrative digital advertising market for tax revenue, a move reflecting growing scrutiny over the economic influence of digital platforms.
However, this initiative places California on a collision course with federal laws and constitutional protections, echoing the ongoing legal dispute over Maryland’s digital advertising tax.
Legal experts anticipate that California’s digital advertising tax will encounter lawsuits challenging its constitutionality, drawing from the legal arguments presented in Maryland’s ongoing litigation.
These challenges could center on federal preemption issues, such as the Internet Tax Freedom Act’s prohibition against discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, and constitutional concerns related to interstate commerce, due process, and free speech.
California’s legislative amendment to introduce a digital advertising tax with A.B. 2829 marks a bold foray into uncharted legal territory, mirroring Maryland’s contentious tax measure.
As California braces for potential legal battles, the outcome of Maryland’s case could serve as a bellwether for the future of digital advertising taxation in the United States. Stakeholders, including tech giants, advertisers, and legal observers, will be watching closely as California navigates the complex interplay of state taxation, federal law, and constitutional rights in the digital age.
If you have any queries about the proposed California Digital Advertising Tax, or US tax matters more generally, then please get in touch.
In a significant development for digital commerce, the Cabinet of Japan has proposed tax reform bills aiming to revamp the current tax regime to better accommodate the burgeoning digital economy.
Submitted to the Japanese National Diet on 2 February 2024, these reforms are particularly focused on taxing platform operators involved in providing digital services from outside Japan, marking a pivotal change in the application of the Japanese consumption tax (JCT).
The Japanese consumption tax, a value-added tax levied on a wide array of goods and services, previously exempted services provided from outside Japan.
However, the rapid growth of the digital economy and the substantial provision of digital services to Japanese consumers from abroad necessitated a revision of this policy.
Starting from October 2015, digital services delivered via the internet to businesses or consumers in Japan were subjected to JCT, encompassing:
The move to impose taxation on platform operators comes in response to the challenges in ensuring tax compliance by nonresident providers of e-services, highlighted by incidents where prominent online service providers failed to meet their JCT obligations.
Under the new legislation, certain platform operators will be taxed with JCT as if they were the direct providers of digital services.
This applies to platforms facilitating e-services to Japanese consumers, with specific criteria set to identify which operators fall under this taxation scheme.
Designation as a “specified platform operator” by the Commissioner of the National Tax Agency of Japan is contingent on the total amount of consideration for e-services provided in Japan through the platform exceeding JPY 5 billion in a fiscal year.
Once designated, a platform operator is publicly announced and required to notify nonresident service providers of their status, with the designation becoming effective six months post-announcement.
This move essentially shifts the JCT liability from the nonresident service providers to the platform operators themselves, simplifying tax obligations for services targeted predominantly at businesses.
Assuming the Diet passes the tax reform bills, the new taxation on platform operators would be effective from April 1, 2025.
Platform operators meeting the specified criteria are obligated to report by September 30, 2024, with designations expected to be finalized by the end of that year.
This reform anticipates that major platform operators will be classified as “specified platform operators,” necessitating adjustments in how JCT is calculated and collected for digital services. Both platform operators and nonresident e-service providers will need to establish mechanisms to comply with the new JCT obligations, ensuring timely tax return filings and payments.
Japan’s initiative to tax digital platform operators reflects a global trend of adapting tax laws to the realities of the digital economy.
This reform not only aims to enhance tax revenue integrity but also to simplify the tax compliance process for digital services provided to Japanese consumers.
As the November 2024 ballot approaches, stakeholders within the digital commerce ecosystem will closely monitor the developments, preparing for a significant shift in Japan’s tax landscape.
If you have any queries about this article, or Japanese tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
On 7 December 2023, Malta’s Finance Minister announced the implementation of the Nomad Residence Permits (Income Tax) Rules 2023.
These rules offer a beneficial tax regime for digital nomads, reducing their tax burden and simplifying compliance.
Individuals with a valid nomad residence permit will be taxed at a flat rate of 10% on income derived from “authorised work”.
This is a notable decrease from Malta’s progressive tax rate, which can go up to 35%.
“Authorised work” refers to services provided remotely through telecommunications technology by a main applicant either employed by a non-resident employer or self-employed for clients not residing or operating in Malta.
Eligible individuals can benefit from double taxation relief as per Malta’s tax treaties, provided they meet the criteria of being a tax resident in one of the contracting states.
A 12-month exemption period from income tax on authorised work is available, starting either from the issuance of the nomad residence permit or 1 January 2024, whichever is later.
This exemption aims to ease the transition for new permit holders.
To qualify for the exemption, applicants must declare that their residence in Malta during this period is not merely temporary.
However, the exemption does not apply to those whose nomad visa has expired within two years, although they can still benefit from the reduced tax rate.
Income not derived from authorised work will be subject to Malta’s general taxation rules under the Income Tax Act.
Nomad visa applicants must file income tax returns and register for income tax in Malta.
During the first twelve months, income from authorised work is exempt from reporting unless a specific declaration is made.
Proof of foreign tax payment at a rate of at least 10% exempts applicants from reporting that income in Malta, with the responsibility of forwarding proof lying with the Residency Malta Agency.
These new rules make Malta an attractive destination for digital nomads.
The reduced tax rate, combined with the initial tax-exempt period, provides significant financial benefits.
Additionally, the clear definitions and simplified reporting obligations facilitate compliance and reduce administrative burdens for digital nomads.
The approach acknowledges the growing trend of remote working and positions Malta as a forward-thinking jurisdiction that caters to the needs of this emerging workforce segment.
It offers a viable option for digital nomads seeking a tax-efficient base while maintaining compliance with international tax norms.
In summary, Malta’s new tax rules for digital nomads offer an enticing mix of reduced tax rates and simplified procedures, likely to attract more remote workers to its shores.
If you have any comments or queries about this article on the new tax rules for digital nomads in Malta, or other Malta tax matters, then please get in touch.
On 15 November 2023, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) issued comprehensive guidance on the UK implementation of the OECD’s model reporting rules for digital platforms.
This initiative aligns with similar regulations already in effect in EU Member States.
The new rules are applicable from 1 January 2024, with reporting starting in January 2025.
The rules apply to UK digital platforms facilitating transactions between sellers and customers.
These platforms, defined broadly, are required to perform due diligence to identify sellers engaged in relevant activities.
Reporting obligations include annual submission of identification and transactional information of sellers to HMRC.
UK-based platforms under EU rules must be aware of earlier reporting obligations in the EU.
However, platforms complying with UK rules may not need to report in the EU, as there’s relief when equivalent information is accessible from non-EU countries.
The guidance clarifies what constitutes a ‘Platform’ and outlines the responsibilities of ‘Platform Operators,’ especially in scenarios with multiple entities involved in a single platform operation.
Notably, non-UK platforms with UK sellers or property are not deemed in-scope as UK Reporting Platform Operators.
However, platforms operated by partnerships or similar legal entities must consider their UK tax exposure.
The guidance details activities considered relevant under the rules, emphasizing that services must be ‘at the request of the user’ and capable of being personalized.
For reporting purposes, the ‘Seller’ is identified as the person registered on the Platform, which simplifies reporting obligations for Platform Operators.
Platform Operators are mandated to conduct due diligence on sellers, with the flexibility to delegate this task but retaining legal responsibility.
HMRC has established the Platform Reporting Service (PRS) for the electronic submission of reports, requiring registration and notification by Platform Operators.
Platform Operators must begin due diligence and related obligations from January 1, 2024.
The first reporting period covers January 1 to December 31, 2024, with reports due by January 31, 2025.
HMRC’s new guidance provides a clear roadmap for digital platforms to prepare for and comply with the upcoming reporting requirements.
It emphasises the importance of accurate data collection and reporting, aiming to streamline the process and ensure tax compliance across digital platforms.
For UK digital platforms, and those with UK sellers, understanding and integrating these guidelines into their operational frameworks is essential for smooth compliance starting in 2024.
If you have any queries about this article on HMRC guidance on digital platform reporting, or UK tax matters in general, then please get in touch.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of cryptocurrencies, clarity on taxation remains a crucial concern for both users and intermediaries.
In a recent roundtable discussion between the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Association de planification fiscale et financière (APFF), the CRA offered insights and guidelines on several critical issues related to the taxation of cryptocurrencies.
A scenario presented to the CRA involved a taxpayer holding bitcoins in a cryptocurrency wallet, transferring these bitcoins to a centralized platform for exchanging and lending crypto assets.
The platform offered a variable return of approximately 4% per year in bitcoin in exchange for the deposit.
The platform’s terms included rights to pledge, sell, or lend the bitcoins, with profits from these actions belonging to the platform.
The depositor had withdrawal rights, and withdrawals were paid from a pooled wallet containing bitcoins from various clients.
The crucial query posed was whether this transfer constituted a “disposition” for tax purposes, potentially leading to the realization of a gain, loss, capital gain, or capital loss upon the transfer.
The CRA’s opinion leaned towards considering the taxpayer’s deposit as a disposition, as the platform effectively acquired rights to use, profit from, and dispose of the assets, transferring ownership away from the taxpayer.
This stance by the CRA highlights the necessity for tax advisors to scrutinize the terms and conditions of platforms for both the platform operators and their customers.
The determination of whether a disposition has occurred relies on assessing possession and economic risk linked to the property, rather than accepting a platform’s terms stating otherwise.
The discussion also shed light on the changing landscape of crypto asset lending platforms. Over the past 24 months, these platforms offering returns on cryptocurrency deposits have seen a decline.
Regulatory bodies such as the U.S. SEC and the Autorité des marchés financiers du Quebec clarified that crypto asset deposit accounts fall under securities, requiring compliance with securities laws. Notably, prominent U.S.-based lending platforms faced insolvency protection in 2022.
In Canada, custodial crypto asset trading platforms (CTPs) are regulated as dealers under applicable securities law.
They must explicitly state in their terms that crypto assets are held separately for clients. Unlike the terms of crypto asset lending platforms, transfers to CTPs might not generally constitute a disposition, subject to specific circumstances.
Moreover, the CRA addressed two other cryptocurrency taxation scenarios during the roundtable:
The insights from the CRA’s discussion offer valuable guidance, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of terms and conditions within crypto platforms.
Further, it highlights the need to maintain meticulous records for taxation purposes in the evolving cryptocurrency landscape.
If you have any queries on Canada Crypto Tax, or other Canadian tax matters, then please get in touch.
In the ever-evolving landscape of global taxation, the European Union (EU) has taken a significant stride in enforcing tax transparency on digital platforms.
The recent extension of EU tax transparency rules to digital platforms has introduced new obligations on platform operators, shaking up the way information is collected, verified, and reported for sellers engaging in what are termed as “Relevant Activities.”
While initially an EU initiative, these rules have far-reaching implications for platform operators beyond the EU, especially those established in non-EU countries like the United States.
In this article, we delve into the intricacies of these rules, their impact, and what platform operators need to know.
On January 1, 2023, the EU’s regulations implementing the OECD’s Model Reporting Rules for Digital Platforms, known as DAC7, officially came into effect.
With a deadline of December 31, 2022, EU Member States were mandated to incorporate DAC7 into their national legislation.
The overarching aim of these regulations is to ensure tax compliance among participants in the digital economy and level the playing field between online and traditional businesses.
While the UK’s regulations implementing these rules are still in draft form, they are slated to take effect from January 1, 2024, with the first reports expected in 2025.
The UK’s implementation of these rules will be closely aligned with EU regulations to streamline reporting obligations and reduce duplication.
The crux of DAC7 lies in its broad-ranging requirements for platform operators. In essence, platform operators falling under the scope of these rules must:
DAC7’s focus centers on platform operators.
The term “platform operator” encompasses entities that provide software connecting sellers with users to perform Relevant Activities.
Compliance requirements kick in for platform operators that are either residents of a Member State for tax purposes or fulfill specific conditions like being incorporated under Member State laws, having their management based in a Member State, or having a permanent establishment in a Member State without a jurisdictional information exchange agreement.
Central to DAC7 are the “Relevant Activities,” encompassing activities like renting immovable property, personal services facilitated through the platform, sale of tangible goods, and rental of transport modes.
Platform operators in scope of DAC7 are required to conduct due diligence to collect seller information.
However, exceptions are provided for sellers falling under certain thresholds. Notably, sellers with fewer than 30 sales or a consideration of less than 2,000 euros, governmental entities, listed entities, and certain lessors of immovable property fall outside the due diligence scope.
The collected information includes a range of details such as names, addresses, tax IDs, VAT registration numbers, and more. Verification of this data’s accuracy is paramount, and operators are encouraged to utilize electronic interfaces provided by Member States or the EU for authentication purposes.
For sellers identified through due diligence, platform operators must collect and report a host of transaction-related information. This includes financial account numbers, consideration amounts, activity volumes, fees, commissions, and taxes withheld.
DAC7 outlines measures platform operators must take against non-cooperative sellers. If sellers fail to provide requested information after two reminders, operators can close their accounts or withhold payments until compliance is achieved.
Compliance timelines are well-defined: due diligence and verification by December 31 of the reporting year and information reporting by January 31 of the subsequent year.
Fines for non-compliance should be “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive,” although exact penalties vary by Member State.
The extension of EU tax transparency rules transcends geographical boundaries, impacting non-EU platform operators with ties to the EU.
For instance, US-based operators accommodating EU-based sellers or property rentals in the EU now need to adapt their operations to comply with DAC7.
In a digitally connected world, tax transparency is evolving rapidly. As platform operators, it’s crucial to remain informed about regulations like DAC7 that impact your business operations.
From information collection and verification to reporting and compliance, understanding the nuances is essential for a smooth transition.
As the tax landscape continues to reshape, being proactive in embracing change and adapting to new norms will set the stage for sustainable growth and compliance in an ever-evolving global marketplace.
If you have any queries about this article on the EU tax rules for digital platforms or any other international tax matters, then please do get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article..
Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party and its Web3 project team have recently published a white paper outlining crypto-friendly initiatives, indicating a potential resurgence in the nation’s cryptocurrency landscape.
The proposals include improved accounting practices and support for decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
In the wake of the global tightening of cryptocurrency regulations due to the collapse of the algorithmic stablecoin UST and the bankruptcy of major crypto exchanges, Japan’s Web3 project team believes that the country has a unique opportunity to lead the way in fostering a secure environment for cryptocurrency innovation.
The white paper suggests that Japan could be the first to welcome a new era of crypto growth and lead global discussions around digital assets.
To create a more Web3-friendly environment in Japan, the white paper highlights the need for several policy changes, including tax reforms, enhanced accounting practices, and the introduction of new DAO laws.
These changes aim to encourage investment in tokens and facilitate the growth of blockchain-related businesses in the country.
The white paper acknowledges that tokens are no longer merely speculative assets. Many Web3 startups now use them for fundraising and governance purposes.
Therefore, existing accounting and tax regulations should be updated to reflect the current uses of tokens in the ecosystem. The paper calls for tax reforms that favor cryptocurrencies.
Traditional accounting businesses have found it challenging to audit Web3 companies in Japan, highlighting the need for clear auditing guidelines.
The Japanese Institute of Certified Public Accountants (JICPA) plans to hold study sessions to share information and discuss crypto-assets with Web3-related companies and industry groups. Representatives from related ministries and agencies will also participate as observers.
As the number of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) grows in Japan, the white paper identifies a pressing need for clarity on how they can or should be structured within the country.
Since there are no legal entities to ensure the limited liability of DAO members, the paper proposes establishing DAO laws similar to those governing limited liability companies (LLCs).
The white paper emphasizes that the enactment of LLC-type DAO legislation is intended to increase options for establishing DAOs, without denying the establishment and activities of DAOs under other legal forms.
Japan’s push for crypto-friendly initiatives, as outlined in the Liberal Democratic Party’s white paper, signals a potential thaw in the global crypto winter.
By adopting policy changes such as tax reforms, improved accounting practices, and the introduction of new DAO laws, Japan aims to create a Web3-friendly environment that fosters innovation and growth in the cryptocurrency and blockchain industries.
If you have any queries about Japanese crypto tax / Web 3.0 in Japan or Japanese tax matters in general, then please do get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The UK’s Digital Services Tax (DST), which imposes a 2% tax on the revenues of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces, is set to be withdrawn as part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) two-pillar plan to reform international corporate taxation.
The plan, announced on 1 July 2021, will see the UK commit to a 15% minimum level of global tax on large businesses under Pillar Two, in exchange for being able to tax a portion of the profits of the world’s largest businesses that are attributable to consumption in the UK under Pillar One.
The DST was introduced in 2020 as a temporary measure to address the challenges posed by the digital economy to international corporate taxation. The tax has been effective in raising £358m from large digital businesses in the 2020/21 tax year, 30% more than originally forecast.
However, the DST has faced significant international opposition, with the US arguing that digital services taxes unfairly target American firms and are discriminatory.
The compromise agreed with the US covers the interim period between January 2022 and either 31 December 2023 or the date Pillar One is implemented, whichever is earlier.
Under this compromise, the UK is able to keep its existing DSTs in place until the implementation of Pillar One, but US corporations subject to DSTs may receive tax credits against future tax liabilities.
As a compromise, the US has agreed to terminate proposed trade action and refrain from imposing any future trade actions against the UK.
The OECD’s two-pillar plan aims to reform international corporate taxation and make it fit for the digital age.
Pillar One will enable countries to tax a portion of the profits of the world’s largest businesses that are attributable to consumption in their jurisdictions, including the profits of the world’s largest digital businesses.
Pillar Two will introduce a global minimum tax rate of 15% on large businesses to prevent them from shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions.
The UK has committed to ending its DST by the deadline of 31 December 2023 in order to adopt the OECD’s Pillar One model rules from 2024.
The UK government anticipates that it will introduce a domestic minimum tax in the UK to complement Pillar Two, likely to come into effect from 1 April 2024 at the earliest.
The withdrawal of the DST will have implications for digital companies operating in the UK. Businesses that have not yet been found liable for DST but consider that they may be in scope should revisit their DST exposure analysis.
The UK government’s commitment to introducing a domestic minimum tax may also have an impact on the tax liabilities of digital companies operating in the UK.
If you have any queries relating to UK Withdraws Digital Services Tax or tax matters in the UK more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch with a UK specalist Native!
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.
The rise of e-commerce has caused tax authorities around the world to struggle with keeping up with the rapid changes in consumer behaviour.
As a result, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has proposed global measures to create a mechanism for the taxation of the digital economy.
This means that suppliers will have to consider their tax obligations in jurisdictions where they may have no physical presence. GCC legislators have made strides in creating a fluid framework to capture the digital economy as part of the taxing rules, which places the responsibility on suppliers to determine the place of supply of the respective electronic services based on the global principle of “use and enjoyment.”
In this article, we will delve deeper into the complexities that have arisen as a result of the change in consumer behavior for e-commerce providers and what it means for tax authorities in the GCC.
As a starter, for those unfiamiliar with GCC, it is worth quickly describing what this refers to. The Gulf Cooperation Council is a political and economic alliance of six Middle Eastern countries:
The article refers to the tax and e-commerce regulations within these countries.
When it comes to the sale of physical goods via e-commerce, tax authorities can track and enforce VAT compliance adequately, as the goods have to be physically imported into the final destination and delivered to the end consumer.
The close relationship between Customs and VAT means that physical goods will seldom result in a VAT revenue loss for tax authorities.
However, in the case of non-resident GCC suppliers selling physical goods to GCC resident customers, the transfer of ownership generally occurs before the goods are shipped to the customer, and VAT will be due upon importation.
In these scenarios, international courier companies are tasked with shipping and delivering goods and will also be responsible for paying any import VAT associated with the importation of the goods, which will later be recovered from the end consumer upon actual delivery.
In this way, the non-resident GCC supplier of goods avoids having to register for VAT in the GCC on the basis that there is someone in the GCC member state who is responsible for paying the import VAT.
However, when it comes to the supply of electronic services via online marketplaces, there are two distinct issues that e-commerce providers face: determining the place of supply of electronic services and the challenges of VAT compliance obligations and enforcement by tax authorities.
GCC tax authorities use the principle of “use and enjoyment” to determine the place of supply in respect of electronic services. When the customer uses and enjoys the electronic service in the GCC, the place of supply will be in the GCC member state, which in turn triggers a VAT obligation.
However, determining the place where the customer uses and enjoys a service is more complex where consumers are able to obtain services from anywhere in the world via online marketplaces.
The use of virtual private networks or other location-masking software makes pinpointing the most accurate location of the online consumer even more challenging.
GCC VAT legislation provides a variety of indicators that can be used as guidance, including:
However, obtaining sufficient evidence to prove the place of use and enjoyment is challenging and requires addressing concerns such as whether meeting one criterion is sufficient to prove the customer’s location, what to do if conflicting pieces of information are obtained, and how many checks are expected to be completed by the supplier.
It is generally supported that the type of evidence to support the place of use and enjoyment should be sufficient to enable an “objective reasonable person” to draw the same conclusion as the supplier.
In conclusion, the rise of e-commerce has caused tax authorities around the world to struggle with keeping up with the rapid changes in consumer behaviour.
GCC legislators have made strides in creating a fluid framework to capture the digital economy as part of the taxing rules, which places the responsibility on suppliers to determine the place
If you have any queries about E-Commerce and Taxation in the GCC or GCC tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article
In a recent court case, the Court of Justice in the European Union (EU) has ruled that it is legally acceptable for Italy to impose a withholding tax (WHT) and data-gathering obligations on non-resident online platforms that facilitate short-term property rentals like holiday lets.
However, the obligation to appoint an Italian tax representative liable to pay the WHT was prohibited by the EU law fundamental freedom to provide services.
The ruling has implications for other EU member states with similar rental markets, as they might also be tempted to bring in their own WHT regimes that could impact non-resident platforms.
The case began when Italy introduced three obligations on non-resident platforms in the short-term letting sector in 2017:
(1) collecting income-related data on Italian rentals,
(2) withholding tax on rental income, and
(3) appointing a local tax representative with responsibility for withholding the tax.
Airbnb challenged these rules, arguing that they were incompatible with the freedom to provide services.
The ruling is part of the EU’s ongoing attempts to regulate the economic models of online platforms in areas such as tax and data-protection.
The judgment concerns tax and data-collection and sharing obligations imposed on online platforms and the extent to which tax authorities can use platforms as a de facto compliance arm for the ‘gig’ economy.
The court held that the obligations to collect data and withhold tax at source did not constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services. However, the obligation to appoint a tax representative in Italy was deemed a breach of the freedom to provide services.
The ruling confirms that direct taxation is not an EU-competence yet, and in principle, each member state could introduce its own WHT regime applicable to online platforms.
One key part of the case is DAC 7, a council directive that requires most online platforms to conduct due diligence on their service-providing users and report the information to one or more EU tax authorities.
DAC 7 does not require platforms to act as tax collectors; only as information providers.
In the short-term, the case allows Italy to impose WHT obligations on non-resident platforms.
The long-term implication is that other EU member states might be tempted to introduce their WHT regimes, which could impact non-resident platforms in the medium term.
If you have any queries relating to the Airbnb WHT case or Italian tax matters more generally, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.
The content of this article is provided for educational and information purposes only. It is not intended, and should not be construed, as tax or legal advice. We recommend you seek formal tax and legal advice before taking, or refraining from, any action based on the contents of this article.