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"
- Dutch Supreme Court Refers Key VAT Real Estate Questions to CJEU, Creating Market Uncertainty
- Dispute Over VAT on Final Payment for Business Transfer and Software Use Agreement, Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court 2025
- Supreme Court Confirms: No Destruction of Ruling; No Mediation or Foreign Establishment Proven
- General Court Excise T-690/24 (Kolinsen) – Judgment – Member State of arrival competent to levy excise duty in the event of irregularity detected on arrival
- Dutch Court Denies VAT Deduction for Crypto Platform Over Lack of Direct Service to Non-EU Clients
