- Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that X’s complaints could not annul the Court of Appeal’s judgment under Article 81(1) of the RO Act.
- Reasonable Period Exceeded: The Court noted that more than two years had passed since the appeal in cassation was lodged, exceeding the reasonable period for resolution.
- Case Background: X, the chairman of an ANBI foundation, was involved in submitting five incorrect VAT returns. The dispute included whether 39 other uncharged incorrect declarations could be considered in assessing the scale of tax fraud.
- Initial Sentencing: The Court of Appeal initially sentenced X to 12 months’ imprisonment, considering the large-scale nature of the tax fraud but later reduced it to seven months after partial annulment.
- Final Sentencing: The Supreme Court reduced the sentence further to six months and three weeks due to the prolonged duration of the legal process.
Source Taxlive
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Parcel from China on average € 6 more expensive from January 2026
- No VAT refund for the customer if VAT has not been levied retrospectively at the supplier
- Dutch Court Denies Input VAT Deduction for 2016 Due to Statute of Limitations Expiry
- Preliminary questions to the ECJ in VAT case on the application of the transfer of a totality of assets
- Agreements on the agreement do not lead to intermediary services for financial VAT exemption
