- The taxpayer failed to prove that the recipient of the services ([F]) was established outside the EU; the main place of management and central administration was found to be in the Netherlands.
- The taxpayer could not be considered to have acted in good faith regarding the place of establishment of [F], as they had detailed knowledge of [F]’s operations.
- The services provided by the taxpayer did not qualify as “intermediation” (bemiddeling) for VAT purposes, as the activities did not meet the criteria for facilitating the conclusion of contracts between two parties.
- The court adopted the lower court’s reasoning and found no grounds to overturn the previous decision.
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.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Zero rate rightly refused due to VAT fraud
- No VAT Deduction Without Proper Evidence: Burden of Proof on Entrepreneur After Late Filing
- Zero VAT Rate Denied Due to Knowledge of UK VAT Fraud in Metal Trade Chain
- VAT refund for uncollectible debt: bankruptcy period starts, error regarding cash accounting is no excuse
- No refund of import VAT on show jumping horse: prize money and subsidies do not constitute an economic activity
