- 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"
- Supreme Court Ruling on Classification of Non-Toxic Insecticides Under Tariff Heading 3808 GN
- Court Upholds €53,293 Tax Assessment for 246 kg Untaxed Tobacco Found in Rented Warehouse
- VAT Deduction on Home Office Construction Allowed Despite Limited Private Use, Court Rules
- Court Upholds Inspector’s Rejection of Untimely VAT Refund Objection for 2019 Tax Year
- Creator royalty fee on resale NFT is subject to VAT
