According to BV X, a showroom or website was not necessary because the trade often took place in a more or less private setting. According to the District Court, BV X had not made this concrete with objective data. It had not submitted any documents showing how it had attempted to gain a position on the market for exclusive cars and which channels or contacts it had used.
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT on Management Services for CDC Pension Fund: Not a Common Investment Fund, Appeal Dismissed
- Court Upholds Fine for Late VAT Filing; Objection Partially Granted, Penalty Deemed Appropriate
- VAT Zero Rate Denied for Export of Horse Shares: Appeal Unsuccessful, Tax Assessment Upheld
- VAT Exemption Denied for Services to Pension Funds with CDC and DC Schemes, Court Rules
- VAT Exemption for Pension Fund Management: Distinction Between Accumulation and Payout Phases Disputed
