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"
- Impact of 2027 Policy Change on Home Batteries and VAT for Solar Panel Owners
- Supreme Court to Decide Tax Status of Paved Parking Lot: Built or Unbuilt Land?
- VAT Implications for ‘Free’ Online Services: Legal Challenges and Potential Impact on SMEs
- Court Denies Tax Deduction for Family Business Succession Advisory Costs as Private Expenses
- No deduction of input tax for private advisory fees shareholders
