The Court of Appeal, like the District Court, found it plausible that X’s business had ended in 2016, even though X had added providing nutritional advice and “kettlebell training” as an activity in the trade register as of 1 June 2015. X had not submitted evidence showing that it was X as such who had started to carry out those activities, and in particular she had not proved that A was involved. The Court of Appeal therefore ruled that there was a withdrawal within the meaning of Section 3(3)(a) of the Turnover Tax Act 2016.
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT and School Building Transfers: Economic Activity, Consideration, and Legal Certainty in Dutch Case Law
- New policy note on intermediation in share transactions
- No Excuse for Unpaid VAT Without Filing Invitation; Fine Upheld but Reduced to €1,500
- No VAT Deduction for Exempt Rental by Partnership to BV, Court Den Bosch 2025
- Penalty for payment of additional VAT assessment reduced due to incidental negligence
