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"
- VAT Increase on Hotels Could Lead to Billions in Losses for Tourism Sector
- Proposed VAT Increase on Tourism Yields No Net Gain, Faces Parliamentary Vote
- No VAT Deduction for Family Business Succession Advisory Costs, Court Rules Against A BV
- Impact of 2027 Policy Change on Home Batteries and VAT for Solar Panel Owners
- Supreme Court to Decide Tax Status of Paved Parking Lot: Built or Unbuilt Land?
