- A practicing doctor, referred to as A, applied for VAT refunds for 2015 and 2016 related to developing a harvesting machine, but investigations revealed her partner was the primary contributor, handling design, business contacts, and patent registration, while A had minimal involvement.
- The District Court and Court of Appeal examined the definition of entrepreneurship based on CJEU case law, concluding that A did not fulfill the criteria of acting independently or bearing entrepreneurial risk, as her partner managed all aspects of the business.
- Although the District Court initially awarded A €3,500 for unreasonable delays in handling her case, the Court of Appeal found that the procedural time was acceptable, resulting in no further damages or reimbursement of legal costs.
Source BTW jurisprudentie
