- 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"
- 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
