- BV X sold luxury lifestyle products and fashion items to individuals and businesses
- Mrs. A owned 100% of the shares and was a director of BV X
- Purchases were mainly made from C and later from D
- BV X requested VAT refunds in 2016 and 2017, which were granted
- After an investigation, it was found that B was the actual director, not A
- BV X appealed a VAT assessment and denial of refund requests
- The court ruled in favor of BV X, stating they were not aware of participating in VAT fraud
- The inspector pointed out suspicious circumstances, but the court did not find evidence of fraud
- BV D had filed VAT returns and paid some of the amounts listed in the returns
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"
- No Defensible Position for VAT Fraudster, Rules Advocate General Van Kempen in Tax Case
- Smoking Cessation Programs Not Exempt from VAT Due to Lack of Required Medical Qualifications
- Payment Not Considered Compensation for Transfer of Generality of Goods, Article 37d Not Applicable
- Reduced VAT Rate Applies to Live Events Featuring Online Communities and Streamers, Court Rules
- Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over VAT Refund Requests for 2018; 2019 Claim Also Denied
