- The taxpayer’s appeal against a BPM additional assessment was wrongly declared inadmissible because the court received a valid written power of attorney after the deadline but before the hearing.
- The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held that although the court could initially have dismissed the case for lack of a recent authorization, that ground fell away once the case was heard and the new authorization was on file.
- The lower court also misapplied Article 8:24(2) Awb, since that provision does not set specific formal requirements for a written power of attorney.
- The note about an expired passport copy was irrelevant because the passport was still valid when the authorization was submitted.
- The appeal was therefore admissible, and the Court of Appeal reduced the BPM assessment without sending the case back.
Source: futd.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"
- Dutch Hotels Under Pressure After VAT Increase on Accommodation
- AG says informal disclosure of VAT payment difficulties does not prevent criminal liability
- 2026 OSS VAT Filing Guide for the Netherlands
- VAT Consequences of Free Real Estate Transfer to Own Company in Austria
- No Input VAT Deduction for Deficient Invoices














