The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court ruled that the notification of 28 January 2021 is not a refund decision, but an ex officio refund. Since no objection was possible, the inspector was right to declare the objection against that communication inadmissible. In 2006, X bv licensed a trademark to Q bv, and in 2008 concluded an agreement related to a VAT refund. A nv bought the claim and the right to a VAT refund from X bv for €1.8 million. X bv requested a VAT refund of €1.8 million in 2012, but ultimately the refund was set at €878,000. X bv objected to this, but the objection was declared inadmissible. The court ruled that both the objection against the 2021 notification and the 2013 refund decision were rightly declared inadmissible. The court also stated that X bv is bound by the agreement to transfer the VAT claim and cannot be put in a better position by means of the objection.
Source Taxlive
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Shareholder of Belize Company Cannot Challenge VAT Assessment and Penalties
- No VAT insurance exemption due to lack of direct link between premium payment and pension benefit
- Industry Pension Fund May Partially Deduct VAT on Execution Costs for Employee Services
- VAT exemption for debt counselling as of Jan 1. 2026
- Senate accepts bill to retain reduced VAT rate on culture, media and sports
