- X is a holding company that holds investments and makes investments.
- Y is a cafeteria and ice cream parlor that rents a property, including inventory, from X.
- The dispute is whether X, Y, and Z form a fiscal unity for VAT purposes.
- The court rules that X and Y form a fiscal unity as of December 1, 2020, but Z does not belong to it.
- The tax inspector fails to prove that there are non-negligible relations between Z and X and Y.
- Due to Mr. A being the indirect director of X and Y, they are under joint management, indicating organizational interdependence.
- The rental of the property, including inventory, also establishes non-negligible economic relations between X and Y.
- Therefore, X and Y form a fiscal unity for VAT purposes.
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"
- Low-Care Hospice Entitled to VAT Deduction for Services Provided, Court Rules
- Court Allows Partial VAT Deduction for New Complex Construction Costs; Appeal Partially Successful
- No VAT Deduction for New Atelier House Construction, Court Rules Against Taxable Rental Option
- Netherlands 2026 Tax Plan: VAT Reversal, Property Rules, and Cross-Border Compliance Changes
- Court Ruling on Customs Debt Liability and Warehouse Regulation Compliance in Noord-Holland Case
