For the years 2015 and 2016, the plaintiff allowed the value-added tax incurred on costs for, among other things, the separate collection and/or separation of packaging materials to qualify for a contribution from the BCF (Environmental Relief Funds). These contributions from the BCF have been reclaimed from the plaintiff. The dispute revolves around whether the recovery decisions and interest decisions can be upheld. The court ruled that the plaintiff provides a service for consideration with the aforementioned activities. The court also ruled that the services are performed in the course of economic activities, and the plaintiff does not act as a government entity regarding the activities in question. Regarding the charged interest, the court referred to its judgments of December 24, 2019, and September 30, 2020. The plaintiff’s appeal based on the principle of due diligence fails. The appeals are dismissed.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Despite the absence of a tax representative, the application of the zero rate
- Comments on T-184/25: Transfers of credit portfolios and VAT: AG puts credit management exemption under pressure
- New Four-Year VAT Adjustment for Investment Services on Real Estate Starting 2026
- VAT refund rightly refused due to unproven previous payment
- VAT Rules for Unpaid Invoices: When Can Entrepreneurs Reclaim or Repay VAT?
