- A and his partner B built a house and were charged VAT for the construction.
- They signed a partnership agreement for the exploitation of an office space in the house.
- The partnership signed a lease agreement with A’s BV.
- X requested a VAT refund for the construction costs of the house.
- The tax inspector denied the refund, stating that there was no direct and immediate connection between the purchase of the house and the intended rental of the office space.
- X appealed, but the court agreed with the tax inspector that there was no right to a VAT refund.
- The court acknowledged that X was an independent entity and that the office space was rented out for a longer period.
- The court disagreed with the tax inspector’s argument that X lacked the necessary independence for entrepreneurship.
- The court also disagreed with the tax inspector’s argument that X did not participate in the market for office space rental.
- The court referred to a previous ruling and stated that X failed to provide sufficient evidence of the connection between the purchase of the house and the rental of the office space.
- X’s appeal was dismissed by the court.
Source: futd.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.
