The Court ruled that the granting of access to the festival site and the provision of the parking were not formally separate services that nevertheless had to be regarded as a single act, and neither could the two services be regarded as one act which, economically, from one performance existed and of which splitting into two separate performances would be artificial. This did not change the fact that the parking was a temporary facility that was only granted during the festival.
Source:
Note from the editors: This case may seem more obvious than it actually is. There have been earlier cases where the Dutch High Court decided that parking was either a separate supply or included in the ‘main supply’, i.e. giving access to an amusement parc. In these other cases, it was clear that the amusement parc and the associated parking was a permanent location and situation.
In the current case, this is not so: the festival was only a couple of days, and the parking was allowed on a field that was normally not used for parking. The whole infrastructure was temporary, and only available to the visitors of the festival.
To us it therefore seems likely that the taxpayer does not accept this decision of the court and will appeal. We would say that that the court is very easily dismissing the temporary element, and the fact that the parking was part of a broader transportation and infrastructure plan. As such, the parking was inevitably and obligatory part of the whole festival. The fact that visitors could choose to come by car (and thus use the parking) or not, does not take away the fact that the parking facilities were a necessary integral part of the organisation of the festival.
