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"
- Netherlands 2026 Tax Plan: VAT Reversal, Property Rules, and Cross-Border Compliance Changes
- Court Ruling on Customs Debt Liability and Warehouse Regulation Compliance in Noord-Holland Case
- Supreme Court Ruling on VAT Refund Request and Objection Admissibility, September 12, 2025
- Court Denies Zero VAT Rate for Intra-Community Supplies Due to Insufficient Evidence
- Court Ruling on Tax Assessment and EU Defense Rights Principle Compliance
