- The dispute concerns whether the Inspector provided all relevant documents, whether the appellant is liable for excise and stock tax, and whether the additional tax assessment is correct.
- The appellant seeks to overturn previous decisions, the tax assessment, and the interest decision, arguing lack of evidence, non-liability, and unequal treatment.
- The Inspector argues the appellant was involved in the possession and sale of untaxed lubricating oil, making him liable for excise, and supports the correctness of the assessment with evidence of the appellant’s involvement.
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"
- Appeal to 35-year-old agreements does not inspire confidence that VAT is deductible
- No excusable delay in the event of late VAT refund requests
- Pension fund provides VAT-exempt insurance services during the performance of the benefit agreement
- Additional VAT Assessments Upheld; Misdemeanor Fines Dismissed
- Pension Fund’s Insurance Service Exempt from VAT; No Right to Input Tax Deduction
