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"
- Flood-Damaged Records Are the Trader’s Risk—VAT Assessment Upheld
- Dutch Court Confirms Gambling Tax Is Not a Prohibited VAT-Type Levy
- Church Not Acting as a VAT Taxable Person: Dutch Court Denies VAT Relief on Building Plot Sale
- Gambling tax for slot machine arcades survives review against VAT Directive and prohibition of discrimination
- Changes to VAT on Motor Vehicle Tax (MRB) in Leasing Agreements
