X and Y were in a relationship, lived together and have children. During a due diligence by the Tax Authorities, invoices, ledger cards and correspondence were requested from customers of Y’s sole proprietorships registered with the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the customers were asked for information about the state of affairs and who was the point of contact for them, for example when doing orders. The customers stated that X was their point of contact. The relationship ended around 2017, after which X established a BV of which he is a director and 100% shareholder. In the discussions during the objection phase between the Tax Authorities, X, the lawyer and the adviser, it was neither denied nor confirmed that X is the entrepreneur.
Source BTW jurisprudentie
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Dutch Supreme Court Refers Key VAT Real Estate Questions to CJEU, Creating Market Uncertainty
- Dispute Over VAT on Final Payment for Business Transfer and Software Use Agreement, Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court 2025
- Supreme Court Confirms: No Destruction of Ruling; No Mediation or Foreign Establishment Proven
- General Court Excise T-690/24 (Kolinsen) – Judgment – Member State of arrival competent to levy excise duty in the event of irregularity detected on arrival
- Dutch Court Denies VAT Deduction for Crypto Platform Over Lack of Direct Service to Non-EU Clients
