Amsterdam Court agreed that Y offered X a marketing platform, a meeting place where sellers and consumers could conduct transactions. According to the Court, Y fulfilled the role of intermediary in that context and not that of purchaser or supplier of the products and services offered on that platform. The exchange of the vouchers resulted in Y making payments to X. Those payments, plus the fees that Y withheld therefrom for its services, therefore constituted the fee under which X had made its supplies of goods.
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Negative Annual Balance Dispute in VAT Margin Scheme for Youngtimer Cars and Watches
- €10,000 Fine for Late and Incorrect VAT Returns
- Interim use of horse does not preclude the application of zero rate for export
- Limburg Worries About Higher VAT on Flowers and Plants
- Tax Fraud Conviction for VAT Filing Offenses
