The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court ruled that X acted as a VAT entrepreneur when the building site was delivered. According to the Court of Appeal, the work performed by X can be compared to that of a trader. The Supreme Court declares the appeal in cassation unfounded without further motivation (art. 81 paragraph 1 RO Act).
Source Taxlive
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Dutch Court Denies VAT Deduction for Crypto Platform Over Lack of Direct Service to Non-EU Clients
- No VAT Fiscal Unity: Foundation and BV Lack Required Financial Interdependence, Court Rules
- No Breach of Legitimate Expectation in VAT Reassessment for Foundation X, Court Rules
- No VAT group due to lack of majority of material control
- No taxable transaction for test placement of showjumping horses
