Unofficial translation
X operates a courier company. X indicates the turnover on the basis of a payment overview from customer C. In 2013, X did not include € 6,700 turnover in the declaration. X states that this concerns an advance that was invoiced by C via self-billing in 2013 and received by X, but that the advance partly relates to activities of a company that X has taken over. C provides the advance to administratively arrange matters concerning the takeover. The inspector imposes an additional assessment. X appeals.
Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the inspector was right to impose an additional assessment. In principle, X owes the sales tax invoiced on his behalf by means of self-billing. X fails to prove that the turnover does not belong to him. The appeal is unfounded
Source Taxlive.nl in Dutch
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- 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
- No VAT Fiscal Unity: Foundation and BV Lack Required Financial Interdependence, Court Rules
- No Breach of Legitimate Expectation in VAT Reassessment for Foundation X, Court Rules
- No VAT group due to lack of majority of material control
