No reliance on tax adviser where VAT invoices were not provided on time

• Facts: A Dutch VAT fiscal unity issued six sales invoices between January and April 2014 showing a total of €22,498 VAT, while nil VAT returns were filed for those periods. The director prepared the invoices, while an intermediary handled the VAT returns.
• Issue: The taxpayer argued, in essence, that it could rely on the intermediary responsible for preparing the returns. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal had to determine whether the invoices had actually been supplied to the intermediary in time and whether the underpayment resulted from intentional or conditionally intentional conduct. The case is ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:6174, decided on 22 September 2026. [taxence.nl]
• Decision: The Court found conditional intent. The fiscal unity failed to substantiate that the invoices had been provided to the intermediary on time. A 50% penalty was considered appropriate, although it was ultimately reduced to €5,225 because the reasonable time for proceedings had been exceeded.

Extended article

A recent Dutch judgment highlights an important distinction between outsourcing the preparation of VAT returns and outsourcing responsibility for ensuring that the information needed for those returns is complete.

The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled on 22 September 2026 in a case concerning a VAT fiscal unity trading in chemical raw materials. The proceedings concerned whether too little VAT had been paid as a result of intentional or conditionally intentional conduct for purposes of the penalty provisions in Article 67f of the Dutch General State Taxes Act (AWR). [taxence.nl], [wetten-overheid.nl]

The director of the fiscal unity prepared the company’s sales invoices himself, whereas an intermediary was responsible for handling its VAT returns. Between January and April 2014, six invoices were issued containing a combined €22,498 of VAT. Nevertheless, nil VAT returns were submitted for the corresponding periods.

A key question was therefore whether the director had supplied those invoices to the intermediary sufficiently early for them to be included in the relevant VAT returns.

According to the Court, the fiscal unity did not make this plausible. In particular, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that the six invoices had been passed to the intermediary before the returns were submitted. A subsequent email from the intermediary indicated that the relevant turnover was not entered into the records until September 2014 on the basis of the bank receipts.

Reliance on an adviser has limits

The significance of the judgment lies particularly in the Court’s approach to reliance on an external intermediary or tax return preparer.

The director had personally prepared the invoices and had stated VAT on them. In those circumstances, he knew that VAT had been invoiced. If the information necessary to include those transactions in the VAT returns was not provided to the intermediary, the taxpayer could not simply rely on the intermediary and assume that the resulting nil VAT returns were correct.

The Court therefore concluded that there was conditional intent in relation to the underpayment of VAT. The director’s conduct could be attributed to the fiscal unity.

This is consistent with the importance of the specific intent requirement under Article 67f AWR. Dutch case law in 2026 has separately confirmed that a penalty under that provision requires the relevant intent or gross negligence to concern the failure to pay VAT that is due in the Netherlands, illustrating that the statutory penalty requirements must be assessed carefully rather than assumed merely because an additional VAT assessment arises. [bijzonders…afrecht.nl], [civra.nl]

50% penalty, but reduced for excessive duration

The Court considered a 50% penalty appropriate in light of the conditional intent. However, because the proceedings had exceeded the reasonable-time requirement, the penalty was reduced to €5,225.

The judgment therefore carries a wider compliance message for businesses using tax advisers, shared-service centres or other third parties to prepare VAT returns. Responsibility does not end when preparation of the return is outsourced. A company needs a demonstrable process ensuring that all invoices and other relevant transaction information reach the person preparing the VAT return before the filing deadline.

From a VAT governance perspective, this makes the audit trail particularly important. Businesses should be capable of demonstrating not only that invoices existed, but also when and how the relevant information was transmitted to the VAT compliance function.

Sources:
Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, 22 September 2026, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:6174
Article 67f AWR – Dutch General State Taxes Act [taxence.nl] [wetten-overheid.nl]