- The Supreme Court ruled that the inspector violated the EU legal right to defense.
- The VAT additional tax assessment was annulled.
- X BV was not timely and explicitly informed about the intended tax assessment.
- X BV operates in advertising and marketing for gambling, organized by Swiss companies.
- A tax audit in 2005 led to a 12.4 million euro VAT assessment for X BV.
- The case was referred to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court after a first appeal.
- The referral court found no limitation of the EU right to defense.
- X BV disagreed and appealed to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court found the inspector’s notification insufficient.
- The inspector’s communication in January 2006 was deemed inadequate.
- A specific tax amount and elements were required for proper notification.
- X BV was not clearly invited to provide its view on the assessment.
- Prior agreement on the tax period and data provision by X BV was irrelevant.
- X BV should have been allowed to respond to the inspector’s final position.
Source: taxlive.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.
