The Gelderland District Court was of the opinion that there was a mediation service, which can be seen separately from the escort service provided by the gigolo. X BV’s earnings model is based on establishing contact between a gigolo and a customer. She gets paid for that and her role ends with that. The performance cannot be absorbed by the escort service, because it is provided by the gigolo. It is plausible that the customer will experience this as well. Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal confirms the court’s decision.
Source BTW jurisprudentie in Dutch
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Settlement on VAT Revision for City Office Limits Refund, Court Awards €33,105 Plus Statutory Interest
- Dutch Court: Fiscal Representation Cannot Be Required for VAT Zero-Rate Where Mutual Assistance Exists
- Supreme Court Refers VAT Deduction Dispute on Mixed Costs in Financial Instruments to Hague Court
- No VAT Deduction Allowed for ICT Manager’s Mobile Phone Bundles, Court Rules
- No Penalty for Lack of Intent in Dutch VAT Non-Payment, Supreme Court Rules
