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"
- Hospice performance does not qualify as exempt service or short stay
- Assessment of Dispute: Single or Multiple Services in Hospice Guest Care and Tax Implications
- Netherlands Suspends €2 Handling Fee on Non-EU Parcels, Awaits EU Customs Measures in 2026
- Decision on the introduction of a national handling fee postponed
- No VAT Fiscal Unity Without Financial Integration, Rules Advocate General Ettema
