- An appellant, a practicing physician, sought a VAT refund for a “harvesting machine” based on a document that was later identified as an offer, not an invoice, leading to a tax reassessment. The core dispute revolved around whether the appellant was personally responsible for activities related to the “harvesting machine,” allowing her to claim input tax deductions. The court determined that the appellant was not credibly involved in the machine’s development or operation, nor did her partner act as her authorized representative. Thus, the court upheld the tax inspector’s decision that the appellant was not eligible for the VAT refund.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.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.
