The place of supply was the residence of the performer. BV X facilitated the establishment of contact between the performer and the user. According to the Court of Appeal, the inspector had also not made it plausible that BV X concluded agreements in its own name. The argument of the inspector that BV X provided exempt payment services and that it had therefore wrongly deducted all input tax was submitted too late.
Source:
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Supreme Court Rules GP’s Services to Foundation Not Exempt from VAT
- Dutch Supreme Court Ruling: VAT Exemption on Integrated Primary Care Services by General Practitioners
- Court Ruling on Zero Rate Conditions for Second-Hand Car Sales and Fraud Penalties
- Dutch Government Proposes VAT Obligation for Digital Platforms Starting July 2028
- Dutch Supreme Court Rules GP Services to Partnership Not Exempt from VAT
