The activities of VOF X consisted of the purchase, sale and repair of jewelery and the purchase, sale and processing of precious metals. In addition, jewelry was also offered for sale via a website.
According to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, VOF X has not complied with the administrative obligations of article 34, paragraph 1, of the Tax Law. To this end, the Court refers in particular to the presence in the records of forged or summarily drawn up purchase receipts, the non-regular updating of cash receipts and the inadequate administration of the flow of goods. As a result, VOF X does not, at least insufficiently, keep a regular record of (1) the purchase statements issued by it, as well as of (2) the expenditure and receipts with regard to the deliveries of goods and services provided by it.
Source BTW jurisprudentie
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Tax Authority Offers Option for Digital Mail Starting December 2025
- Court Confirms Additional Tax Assessment and Denies Reliance on Small Business Scheme and Trust Principle
- VAT Deduction Denied for Advisory Costs in Family Business Succession: Dutch Court Clarifies Criteria
- VAT Increase Threatens Entire Tax Plan in Dutch Parliament
- Cabinet Seeks Alternatives to VAT Hike on Culture, Eyes Unusual Tax Exemptions
