- The court case involves a bank institution and a company referred to as [bedrijf 2].
- [bedrijf 2] provides services labeled as Project Services and Maintenance and Support Services, which are not characteristic of payment transactions.
- [bedrijf 2] does not make financial and legal changes typical of payment transactions.
- The services of [bedrijf 2] are considered additional and share the tax fate of the main service.
- The bank institution continues to oversee and execute payment transactions.
- Employees of the bank institution remain involved in customer contact.
- Liability provisions in the MSA do not indicate that [bedrijf 2] executes payment transactions for the bank institution.
- Services of [bedrijf 2] do not qualify for exemption from payment transactions.
- The appeal to the principle of neutrality does not succeed.Regarding the dispute:
- It is undisputed that the services of [bedrijf 2] form a single service for VAT purposes.
- It is undisputed that the services of [bedrijf 2] are essential for executing payment orders for the bank institution’s customers.
- The dispute is whether the services of [bedrijf 2] are characteristic of the bank institution’s exempt banking services.
- The bank institution argues that [bedrijf 2]’s services legally and financially change the customer’s position and that [bedrijf 2] handles payments from start to finish.
- The inspector argues that [bedrijf 2]’s services are limited to technical services and do not involve the transfer of ownership of money amounts.
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.
