Structure with a company in Jersey, as a result of which noVAT is due, while there is a right to deduct for the plaintiff’s permanent establishment in the Netherlands. The court rules that there is an abuse of law, because there is a purely artificial construction that is exclusively aimed at obtaining a tax advantage. The contractual provisions do not correspond to economic and commercial reality. Redefinition leads to the plaintiff being denied the right to deduct. The appeal on the defense principle is rejected. The additional tax assessments were therefore rightly imposed. The court does nullify the fines imposed because of an admissible position.
Source: rechtspraak.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Dutch Supreme Court Refers Key VAT Real Estate Questions to CJEU, Creating Market Uncertainty
- Dispute Over VAT on Final Payment for Business Transfer and Software Use Agreement, Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court 2025
- Supreme Court Confirms: No Destruction of Ruling; No Mediation or Foreign Establishment Proven
- General Court Excise T-690/24 (Kolinsen) – Judgment – Member State of arrival competent to levy excise duty in the event of irregularity detected on arrival
- Dutch Court Denies VAT Deduction for Crypto Platform Over Lack of Direct Service to Non-EU Clients
