The court ruled that these were ‘ghost invoices’, and that X bv could not deduct the input tax. According to the court, X bv does not make it plausible that there are services that have been provided to the payments. The activities of the interested party, X bv, consist of the recruitment and selection, and the broadcasting and secondment of technical personnel. According to the court, X bv did not keep track of how many and which temporary employees were provided. Nor is it specified at what period the invoices relate. The court also notes that the overviews of the posted workers do not correspond with the invoices. The appeal is unfounded.
Source: taxlive.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT and School Building Transfers: Economic Activity, Consideration, and Legal Certainty in Dutch Case Law
- New policy note on intermediation in share transactions
- No Excuse for Unpaid VAT Without Filing Invitation; Fine Upheld but Reduced to €1,500
- No VAT Deduction for Exempt Rental by Partnership to BV, Court Den Bosch 2025
- Penalty for payment of additional VAT assessment reduced due to incidental negligence
