According to the Court, the inspector with the sole argument that there must be entrepreneurship for VAT because in 2012 inexplicably high cash deposits were made, did not succeed in his burden of proof to make it plausible that the income came from activities for which X could be regarded as an entrepreneur for VAT. According to the Court, the amounts of cash deposits could also have come from a source that was not subject to VAT. For the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, X could not be considered a VAT entrepreneur either. Although there were indications that X had been active in the car trade, the Court believed X’s statement that, despite his efforts to do so, the car trade had never took off.
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Misdemeanor fine for gross negligence in maternity care practice not convincingly demonstrated
- No VAT Deduction on Apartment Purchase: Mixed Residential and Business Use Confirmed
- Low VAT Rate for Culture, Media, and Sports Maintained After Positive Implementation Test
- Advisor’s Recommendation on VAT-Exempt Staff Provision: No Penalty Imposed by Court
- No Reduced VAT Rate for Photo Mosaics and Contour Collages, Court Rules
