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"
- Thrift Shops Return to Court Over VAT Collection Dispute
- Customs Court Rules Doctor Role Play Set as Toys, Not Clothing
- Adjustment of VAT deduction for services on immovable property: What can you still do?
- Government Responds to Questions on VAT Increase Impact Analysis for Accommodation
- Heijnen Maintains VAT Increase on Accommodation Despite Predicted Revenue Loss
