- Advocate General Ettema states that a fiscal unity for VAT requires parties to have agreed to exercise financial control as a unit and to have acted accordingly.
- Z and I each hold 40% of X BV and 50% of G BV; G BV holds 20% of X BV and 100% of M BV; Z is sole director of X BV and G BV, and G BV is sole director of M BV.
- The tax inspector imposed additional VAT assessments on X BV for not charging for services to M BV; X BV claims fiscal unity, so no VAT is due.
- The court ruled there is no fiscal unity due to lack of financial interdependence, as no shareholder holds a majority in X BV.
- A-G Ettema concludes there is no financial interdependence and recommends rejecting X BV’s 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.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- No VAT group according to AG due to lack of financial interconnectedness
- VAT in 2026: mark these deadlines in your calendar
- Supreme Court Upholds Additional VAT Assessment Due to Insufficient Proof Against Revenue Reconstruction
- Tourist Tax Included in VAT Base for Campsite Services, Supreme Court Rules
- Majority Shareholding and Fiscal Unity: Assessing Financial Interdependence Among Collaborating Shareholder Groups
