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"
- Mandatory E-Invoicing in the EU: What Does ViDA Mean for Your SME Clients?
- Dutch Tax Authorities Announce Major Changes to 13th Directive VAT Refund Procedure
- ViDA E‑Invoicing and Digital Reporting in the Netherlands: Strategic Choices and Phased Timeline to 2032
- VAT OSS in the Netherlands: Managing Multi-Channel Marketplace Sales and Bookkeeping Challenges
- Cabinet Response to ViDA E-Invoicing and Digital Reporting Report Sent to House of Representatives
