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"
- 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
