- The Knowledge Group on Other Activities takes the position that there is an indirect provision of properties after the exchange and re-rental of the properties.
- The case involves a property exchange between horeca entrepreneur X and beverage producer Y.
- X is the sole shareholder of X bv.
- Property A is rented by Y to X bv.
- Properties B and C are rented by X to Y, who subleases them to X bv.
- The lease agreements are almost identical, but there are some differences indicating that the economic interest lies with X.
- According to the Knowledge Group, there is a provision of properties by X in relation to properties B and C.
- Since Y only acts as an intermediary and the economic interest actually lies with X, there is an indirect provision of properties.
- X bv operates a business in properties B and C, which are owned by X.
- The rental of these properties by X to Y and the re-rental of the properties to X bv do not constitute an independent economic function.
Source: taxlive.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Dutch Tax Law Clarifies Data Reporting Rules for Small Business Scheme
- Court Rules No Right to Deduct Input Tax for Shareholder Advice Costs
- Entrepreneur Bound by Settlement Agreement in Tax Reassessment Case on Luxury Watches Sales
- Tax Fraud Lessons: The Perils of Mixing Business and Personal Finances
- Financial Application Disruption at Customs Halts Payments, Urgent Payment Requests Possible
