- A-G Ettema believes disciplinary boards are direct beneficiaries of Stichting X’s activities
- Stichting X organizes and coordinates disciplinary proceedings for lawyers
- X provides staff and workspaces to the boards without receiving payment
- X is funded by an annual cost-covering subsidy from the Dutch Bar Association
- The issue is whether this subsidy is subject to VAT
- The Hague Court ruled X performs an economic activity leading to consumption
- A-G Ettema agrees with the court’s view on the direct link between X’s services and the subsidy
- The conclusion is to dismiss the appeal
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.
