- 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"
- Despite the absence of a tax representative, the application of the zero rate
- Comments on T-184/25: Transfers of credit portfolios and VAT: AG puts credit management exemption under pressure
- New Four-Year VAT Adjustment for Investment Services on Real Estate Starting 2026
- VAT refund rightly refused due to unproven previous payment
- VAT Rules for Unpaid Invoices: When Can Entrepreneurs Reclaim or Repay VAT?
