From 2015 to 2019, the plaintiff was responsible for the separate collection or collection and sorting of packaging from household waste, as well as the registration of the collected packaging materials. She received compensation for this. The plaintiff did not pay any value-added tax on these compensations. Therefore, additional value-added tax assessments were imposed on her. In addition, for those years, the plaintiff included the value-added tax paid on the costs of the aforementioned activities in a contribution from the Packaging Waste Fund (BCF). These contributions from the BCF were reclaimed from the plaintiff. The dispute is whether the additional value-added tax assessments and the recovery decisions can be upheld. The court ruled that the plaintiff provided a service to the packaging industry with the aforementioned activities, which was provided for a fee. The service is also provided in the course of economic activity, and the plaintiff is not acting as a government agency in relation to these activities. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations failed. The plaintiff also argued that the reverse-charge mechanism applied to value-added tax, but this argument also failed. Finally, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the additional value-added tax assessments and recovery decisions were made for amounts that were too high. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.
Source: deeplink.rechtspraak.nl
