The Bahrain Financial Bank (BFH) has issued numerous rulings on issues related to the additional trade tax. This case law is the reason for changing identical state decisions on application questions regarding the addition of funding stakes pursuant to Section 8 No. 1 GewStG.
The changes relate in particular to the following two points:
- no additives activation expenses
- Demarcation questions so-called imaginary capital assets.
The following marginal numbers (Rdnr) in the same-worded ordinances on application questions regarding the addition of financing shares pursuant to Section 8 No. 1 GewStG v. 2.7.2012 changed:
Add diluted expenses to profit
Item No. 2
It has already been organized that a addition of expenses deletedAnd if These are as of the balance sheet date Purchase or production costs Fixed or current assets have been capitalized. In addition, it now includes it Moreover in cases Assets disposed of during the year No addition has been made to such expenses that would have been capitalized as acquisition or production costs if the asset was still part of the business’ assets at the balance sheet date. The case law of the Bahrain Financial Council was thus adopted (BFH, Judgment 30 July 2020, III R 24/18 and 12 November 2020, III R 38/17). Those expenses related to file production are also regulated Self-created intangible assets Fixed assets should always be added; Because there is a ban on activation according to Article 5 Paragraph 2 EStG.
Construction period and rental benefits
Item No. 13
upon activation Construction period and rental benefits Provision is already applied as purchase and production costs Assets disposed of during the year. This is indicated by reference to the paragraph. 2 guaranteed.
Theoretical fixed assets
Item No. 29 b
This item does not. contains a description Theoretical fixed assets. It was added that this fiction must be based not only on the business conditions of the taxpayer, but also (new Referring to the ruling of BFH December 8, 2016, IV R 24/11) also afterwards The specific business object in question It must be addressed in the individual case involved. Other explanations are already included.
The point of “phantom fixed assets” in the state decree is approximated by a brief description of Case law cases. The rulings affected the following companies:
- movie maker, where only leased assets are included in the product created for an individual movie and therefore do not represent fixed assets. However, it differs if it is used in several films; So it’s about fictitious fixed assets (BFH, Judgment 12 November 2020, III R 38/17).
- party promoterThe leasehold event properties are allocated to fictitious fixed assets, as these assets must be held for use at all times in accordance with the business purpose. This also applies if there are different things that are more or less comparable, and the intended purchase of these leased things will not have economic meaning (BFH, Judgment of December 8, 2016, IV R 24/11).
- Exhibition Execution Companyin accordance with the business purpose, there were only order-related instructions from the client and contractual agreements as with a broker, and therefore no fictitious fixed assets were assumed (BFH, Judgment of October 25, 2016, IR 57/15).
- Tour Operator Package, where rented hotel rooms and facilities are not fictitious fixed assets according to the commercial component. As the leased asset is not permanently required, but is included as a partial product in the ‘package round’ of the respective customer product and is used (BFH, Judgment July 25, 2019, III R 22/16).
The principles presented must be applied to all open cases.
Identical decisions from the highest financial authorities in the countries. 6.4.2022