The fact that, according to X, the immovable property was actually used for other purposes, such as storage, did not make this different. As to the second requirement, the Court ruled that X had not excluded the use of the immovable property as parking space in the lease agreement.
Source:
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT Liability of Dutch Kadaster’s Tactical Management Services for DSO-LV under Economic Activity Criteria
- Court Divided on VAT Abuse: Car Sales to Directors at Below-Market Prices and Tax Implications
- Dutch Supreme Court: Abuse of Law in VAT on Underpriced Car Sale by Holding Company to DGA
- Dutch Supreme Court Rejects VAT Refund Appeal; Lower Court Ruling Upheld Without Further Explanation
- Netherlands Raises VAT on Short-Stay Accommodation to 21% Effective January 2026
