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"
- Netherlands: Shadow Accounting Triggers Reversed Burden of Proof and VAT Assessments
- Netherlands: FIOD Arrests Man in €240,000 EU VAT Carousel Fraud Probe
- Dutch entrepreneur disputes €33,000 VAT debt in accountant disciplinary case
- Netherlands Urged to Speed Up E-Invoicing to Combat VAT Fraud
- Netherlands: VAT Assessment on Furnished Holiday Rentals and Small Business Scheme Misuse
