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"
- General Court VAT Case – T-444/25 (Cavert) – Judgment – VAT Exemptions for Public Interest Activities within a VAT Group Require Individual Member Compliance
- VAT Deduction Denied Without Invoices in Zeeland-West-Brabant Tax Case
- Ledger cards insufficient for input VAT deduction
- Court Affirms Non-Deductibility of Input VAT on Catering and Other Non-Business Costs
- VAT Deduction Correction on Unbusinesslike Costs Mostly Upheld
