- Director major shareholder A and spouse B received salary from BV C and jointly owned a home where they built a workspace on an attached garage in 2018/2019
- The couple formed silent partnership X which rented the workspace to BV C starting January 1 2020 and opted for VAT taxed rental but was denied EUR 12313 VAT refund for September 2019
- Court of Zeeland West Brabant and Court of Appeal Den Bosch agreed that X was an independent entity for VAT purposes and conducted economic activity under Article 9 VAT Directive 2006
- The Court of Appeal ruled that X failed to prove the workspace was used exclusively for business purposes based on photos room setup privacy use declarations and lack of other workspace in the home
- The court rejected arguments about conflict with VAT Directive 2006 stating member states have broad discretion in implementing opt in rights and can exclude certain transactions like residential rental from VAT election options
Source: futd.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.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Dutch Court Rules Outsourced Payment Processing Qualifies for VAT Exemption
- No Reduced VAT Rate for Head Spa Treatments at Hairdressers, Dutch Tax Group Rules
- Comments on ECJ C-232/24: Both factoring but also invoice financing subject to VAT
- Netherlands Plans Mandatory Peppol-Based B2B E-Invoicing Regime by July 2030
- Netherlands Tourism at Risk: Experts Warn VAT Hike Could Harm Industry and Economy
