The plaintiff is based in the Netherlands. She is part of a group of companies established in several Member States. The head office is located in Germany. The services provided to the claimant by the head office and other companies belonging to the group established outside the Netherlands lead to taxation for the claimant. The plaintiff argues that there is an obstacle to the freedom of establishment, because the territorial boundary of the fiscal unity confronts her with taxation that would not otherwise have been there. After all, in the case of a fiscal unity, mutual benefits are not taxed. The court ruled that the plaintiff is not hindered in her freedom of establishment. Nor has it become plausible that there is a similar case with companies that can form a fiscal unity.
Source: rechtspraak.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT on Free Social Media Access Still Uncertain Amid Ongoing EU Discussions
- New DAC7 Portal for Reporting Platform Seller Data Available from February 2026
- BBB Criticizes ‘Tulip Tax’: Higher VAT on Floriculture Threatens Jobs and Affordability
- Netherlands Delays VAT on ‘Free’ Social Media Services Amid European Debate and Legal Uncertainty
- Parliamentary Questions on VAT for Social Media: Response to FD Article and European Developments
