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"
- Balcony Glazing Installation Not Considered Energy-Saving Insulation Under Dutch VAT Law
- Five VAT Knowledge Group Positions Withdrawn Due to New Reduced VAT Rate Decision
- Two VAT Zero-Rate Positions Withdrawn Following New Decision Effective February 2026
- General Supervision Trumps Outsourcing: BV Qualifies as Own Constructor for VAT Reverse Charge Scheme
- VAT reverse charge mechanism and owner-buildership: overall management prevails over full outsourcing
