According to the Court of Appeal, BV X had not made it plausible that renting the accommodations was primarily prompted by the special needs of the company. The Supreme Court had explained in the order for reference that it was relevant whether the temporary workers accepted the accommodation offered to them, without leaving them room – in a legal or factual sense – for their own choice of a particular accommodation or with regard to its shared use by one or more others.
Source: futd.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- AG: no arguable position for own VAT fraud
- Court Rules Against Higher Interest Claims on VAT Refund
- Court: VAT carousel fraud involving false invoices and improper tax deductions
- Smoking Cessation Programs Not Exempt from VAT Due to Lack of Required Medical Qualifications
- Reduced VAT Rate Applies to Live Events Featuring Online Communities and Streamers, Court Rules
