- A and B were partners in vof X and held all the shares in BV Y through their holding companies, along with C.
- BV Y provided personnel to vof X for cleaning work in hotels.
- BV Y calculated and declared VAT for the services, but did not pay it.
- The tax inspector imposed additional assessments on BV Y, which remained unpaid.
- BV Y went bankrupt in 2015.
- Vof X claimed VAT deduction for all the VAT invoiced by BV Y.
- The tax inspector disagreed and believed that the VAT related to cleaning hotel rooms was wrongly deducted.
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.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Adjustment of VAT deduction for services on immovable property: What can you still do?
- Government Responds to Questions on VAT Increase Impact Analysis for Accommodation
- Heijnen Maintains VAT Increase on Accommodation Despite Predicted Revenue Loss
- VAT due to number acquisition not deductible due to participation in fraud
- Dutch Government Responds to Questions on Reduced VAT for Culture Media Sports
