- The company received additional VAT assessments for 2015–2019 and was denied VAT refunds for 2018–2019 due to major bookkeeping gaps and missing evidence.
- The court agreed the company failed to prove its right to deduct input VAT, especially for renovations, computers, domain names, and rent.
- VAT corrections were made for private use of a Mercedes car and for unreported VAT on shareholder payments treated as advance payments.
- The court rejected the company’s procedural complaints and upheld the inspector’s VAT corrections and denied refunds, except for a reduced 2015 late-payment penalty.
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"
- Pension Fund’s Insurance Service Exempt from VAT; No Right to Input Tax Deduction
- VAT Assessment Upheld Due to Missing Invoices and Insufficient Proof for Deductions and Loans
- Fiscal Unity for VAT Due to Close Financial and Economic Ties Upheld by Court
- EU Court: Spain Must Grant VAT Exemption for Group-Provided Cleaning Services to Members
- Enterprise Pension Fund’s Services Qualify as VAT-Exempt Insurance, Court Rules
