Plaintiff is liable for VATand carries out both economic and non-economic activities. The fact that the Plaintiff’s administration does not fully comply with the levy of VAT does not mean that there is no right to a refund at all. The VAT charged to the plaintiff must be partly attributed to its economic activities. The defendant is proposing a pro-rata that is based on the income that the plaintiff generates with its economic activities and the subsidy that it receives annually; Plaintiff pleads for a pro rata in which connection is sought with the duties of its staff members. In the opinion of the court, both distribution keys are not sufficient. The court determines the part of the turnover tax charged to the plaintiff that must be allocated to economic activities in good justice. Appeal well founded.
The Court disagreed with the inspector that approximately 1% of the VAT charged to X should be allocated to economic activities. According to the Court, the allocation key used by the inspector did not give an objective and realistic picture of the use for economic and non-economic activities. The Court also found it important that the fees X received for (digital) membership, the sale of publications, interlibrary loan and the sales in the (web) store did not have to cover costs. The allocation key applied by X based on the duties of its staff members and on the basis of which, according to it, approximately 88% of the VAT charged had to be allocated to economic activities, was not substantiated, according to the Court. Since neither party had come up with workable allocation keys, the Court set the portion of the VAT charged to X that had to be allocated to economic activities at 45% in good justice.
Sources:
