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 Grants Three-Month Tolerance Period for Mandatory E-Invoicing Starting January 2026
- New VAT Rates for Takeaway Meals and Leisure Sector Effective March 1, 2026
- Apply for ET14000 Import VAT License via MyMinfin Starting January 15, 2026
- Belgian Businesses Struggle With VAT Filings Due to E-Invoicing Issues, Accountants Request Extension
- Belgium Faces Backlash as School Meal Prices Rise After VAT Increase on Prepared Foods
