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"
- VAT on Management Services for CDC Pension Fund: Not a Common Investment Fund, Appeal Dismissed
- Court Upholds Fine for Late VAT Filing; Objection Partially Granted, Penalty Deemed Appropriate
- VAT Zero Rate Denied for Export of Horse Shares: Appeal Unsuccessful, Tax Assessment Upheld
- VAT Exemption Denied for Services to Pension Funds with CDC and DC Schemes, Court Rules
- VAT Exemption for Pension Fund Management: Distinction Between Accumulation and Payout Phases Disputed
