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: How to Dispute a Peppol Invoice on Time
- New VAT status for “intermunicipal associations” | Impact of the European “Digipolis” judgment on Belgian VAT rules
- Belgium Raises Small-Business VAT Exemption Threshold Gradually from 2027
- Belgium Advances ViDA VAT Bill Ahead of Parliamentary Debate on 22 October 2026
- Belgium launches optional BE SAF-T submission for audit data
