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"
- University sports centre falls under sports exemption, but rental of attributes taxed
- Dutch Parliament Approves Bill Implementing EU ViDA Single VAT Registration
- Tax Penalty Dispute Over Timely Delivery of VAT Invoices
- Court Reviews VAT Refund Dispute Over Pension Fund Classification
- Court Assessment of Pension Fund as a Common Investment Fund
