The ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court ruled that the invoices from Q to X may not state VAT, because this VAT is levied by the contractor on the basis of the VAT reverse charge mechanism. Q should therefore have issued invoices without VAT to X, stating “VAT reversed”. The Supreme Court declares the appeal in cassation without further motivation unfounded (art. 81 paragraph 1 RO Act).
Source Taxlive.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- No Defensible Position for VAT Fraudster, Rules Advocate General Van Kempen in Tax Case
- Smoking Cessation Programs Not Exempt from VAT Due to Lack of Required Medical Qualifications
- Payment Not Considered Compensation for Transfer of Generality of Goods, Article 37d Not Applicable
- Reduced VAT Rate Applies to Live Events Featuring Online Communities and Streamers, Court Rules
- Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over VAT Refund Requests for 2018; 2019 Claim Also Denied
