The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court rules that entrepreneurship under the Participation Act does not automatically lead to entrepreneurship for turnover tax purposes. The Supreme Court declares the appeal in cassation without further motivation unfounded (art. 81 paragraph 1 RO Act).
X is regarded as an entrepreneur for the purposes of the Participation Act. His activities consist of providing training in consultancy business spirituality, mainly to candidates who cannot afford it. As of 2014, X does not charge a fee. X deducts input tax for the period 2014 to 2016. The inspector deducts the deduction and states that X is not an entrepreneur for turnover tax. X states that he is an entrepreneur for turnover tax purposes as he is regarded as an entrepreneur for the Participation Act. X appeals.
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court ( UN 2021/6.1.3 ) rules that the inspector is right to impose the additional assessment. X is not an entrepreneur for turnover tax because he does not charge a fee. The content of the entrepreneurial concept within the Participation Act does not affect the turnover tax act and does not change it. The appeal is unfounded. The Supreme Court declares the appeal in cassation without further motivation unfounded (art. 81 paragraph 1 RO Act).
Source Taxlive.nl
