- BV X was fined for receiving compensation from related companies
- Court and High Court ruled that BV X did engage in economic activities
- There was no VAT fiscal unity between BV X, BV Y, and BV Z
- Financial interdependence requires majority of shares to be in the same hands
- Attorney General advised the Supreme Court to uphold BV X’s appeal
- EU Court ruling in NGD case showed that the definition of financial interdependence was too strict
- A-G advised the Supreme Court to relax the criteria for financial interdependence
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"
- VAT Liability of Dutch Kadaster’s Tactical Management Services for DSO-LV under Economic Activity Criteria
- Court Divided on VAT Abuse: Car Sales to Directors at Below-Market Prices and Tax Implications
- Dutch Supreme Court: Abuse of Law in VAT on Underpriced Car Sale by Holding Company to DGA
- Dutch Supreme Court Rejects VAT Refund Appeal; Lower Court Ruling Upheld Without Further Explanation
- Netherlands Raises VAT on Short-Stay Accommodation to 21% Effective January 2026
