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 Raises VAT Exemption Threshold for Small Businesses to EUR 30,000
- Belgium Sets May 1, 2026, as Effective Date for VAT Chain Reform Measures
- NCTS Phase 6 Opt-Out Goes Live April 1, 2026: Key Changes and Technical Impacts
- Belgium Implements VAT Exemption for Small Businesses and Mandates B2B E-Invoicing from 2026
- Belgium Streamlines Breakbulk Declarations and Tariff Quota Applications with New MASP Procedure
