The activities of VOF X consisted of the purchase, sale and repair of jewelery and the purchase, sale and processing of precious metals. In addition, jewelry was also offered for sale via a website.
According to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, VOF X has not complied with the administrative obligations of article 34, paragraph 1, of the Tax Law. To this end, the Court refers in particular to the presence in the records of forged or summarily drawn up purchase receipts, the non-regular updating of cash receipts and the inadequate administration of the flow of goods. As a result, VOF X does not, at least insufficiently, keep a regular record of (1) the purchase statements issued by it, as well as of (2) the expenditure and receipts with regard to the deliveries of goods and services provided by it.
Source BTW jurisprudentie
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT and School Building Transfers: Economic Activity, Consideration, and Legal Certainty in Dutch Case Law
- New policy note on intermediation in share transactions
- No Excuse for Unpaid VAT Without Filing Invitation; Fine Upheld but Reduced to €1,500
- No VAT Deduction for Exempt Rental by Partnership to BV, Court Den Bosch 2025
- Penalty for payment of additional VAT assessment reduced due to incidental negligence
