It is precisely X’s laconic reaction to the warning (formulated in a fairly general sense) and his laxity/negligence in taking his tax obligations in this respect seriously, according to the Court of Appeal, should have prompted B to take additional measures, all the more because the reaction of X, in any case, it clearly emerged that the border for making a declaration in Belgium had been exceeded. However, the Court agreed with B that the damage that had occurred was also the result of X’s own negligence, once warned, to arrange for VAT returns in Belgium or at least to provide B with the necessary information
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Belgium"
- Belgium Indefinitely Postpones VAT System Modernisation Plans Until Further Notice
- Belgium Updates E-Invoicing FAQs: Invoice Date Determines B2B Electronic Format Requirements
- Belgium Updates E-Invoicing FAQ: Key Changes for 2026 Mandatory Compliance
- EU Issues Formal Notices to Belgium, France, Malta Over VAT IT System Compliance
- FAQ on E-Invoicing implementation in Belgium
