Unofficial translation
X operates a handyman business and has hired self-employed person B purchase materials. X deducts input tax on purchased materials for the fourth quarter of 2016 to 2017. The inspector states that the purchased materials are not suitable for X’s work. X believes that he has been defrauded by B, who presumably used the goods for his own projects. The inspector wants to hear X by phone, but X refuses. The inspector is canceling a hearing. X argues that the hearing obligation has been violated and that the inspector wrongly refuses to deduct the input tax. X appeals.
The District Court of The Hague rules that the hearing obligation has been violated. Since the parties do not wish to be dismissed, the court will deal with the content of the dispute. The court compares the situation in which B has used goods without the knowledge of X with the situation in which goods are stolen or embezzled. The court ruled that X purchased the goods for his own taxed activities and is entitled to deduction. The appeal is well founded.
Source Taxlive.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Magic Truffles, Antacid Tablets, Chewing Gum, and VAT: What Qualifies as a Food Product?
- Late objection to additional VAT assessment remains inadmissible
- Municipal Entrepreneurs’ Fund Not Eligible for VAT Deduction Due to Non-Compliance with Approval Conditions
- Knowledge group position: VAT reverse charge mechanism applicable to contractor activities
- When Is a Theatre Drink a Separate VAT Supply? Lessons from the Dutch Supreme Court
