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"
- Sunscreen Taxed at 21% VAT Because Marketing Authorization Was Missing
- VAT Exemptions for a Member of a Fiscal Unity
- Medical VAT exemption for VAT group requires member to meet all conditions
- VAT Reduced Rate Denied for Sunscreen Products Under Dutch Tax Law
- General Court VAT Case – T-444/25 (Cavert) – Judgment – VAT Exemptions for Public Interest Activities within a VAT Group Require Individual Member Compliance
