- Advocate General Ettema supports the Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s ruling that the VAT exemption for asset management services does not apply to X, a company pension fund, as the investment risks faced by its unit-holders differ from those of unit-holders in UCITS, referencing the Supreme Court’s 2016 judgment.
- The Advocate General emphasizes that the investment risk of X’s unit-holders is not comparable to that of unit-holders in collective defined contribution (CDC) plans versus individual defined contribution (IDC) plans, highlighting distinct legal and financial situations for participants.
- Ettema concludes that X’s fiduciary asset managers do not qualify as intermediaries for VAT exemption purposes under the VAT Act 1968, advising the Supreme Court to reject X’s appeal
Sources
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.
