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"
- Netherlands: Privacy Justifies Secrecy of Third-Party Data in VAT Refund Case
- Netherlands Court Upholds Zero-Rated VAT on Delayed Horse Export
- Netherlands: VAT Directive Implementation Law on Digital Age and One-Stop Shop Expansion
- Netherlands Implements ViDA VAT Single Registration Rules
- Netherlands Advances EU ViDA VAT Reform with Single VAT Registration Bill
