The burden of proof that there was manifest maladministration lay with the recipient and, according to the Court, he had failed to do so. According to the Court, the recipient had not made it plausible that X could or should have known that the zero rate did not apply. The Court took into account that, in view of the procedure regarding the additional assessment, this was not easy to interpret from a tax point of view. Furthermore, the recipient had not made it plausible that the administration was so incomplete or careless that this should lead to manifestly improper management.
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- 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
- VAT due to number acquisition not deductible due to participation in fraud
- Dutch Government Responds to Questions on Reduced VAT for Culture Media Sports
