It is precisely X’s laconic reaction to the warning (formulated in a fairly general sense) and his laxity/negligence in taking his tax obligations in this respect seriously, according to the Court of Appeal, should have prompted B to take additional measures, all the more because the reaction of X, in any case, it clearly emerged that the border for making a declaration in Belgium had been exceeded. However, the Court agreed with B that the damage that had occurred was also the result of X’s own negligence, once warned, to arrange for VAT returns in Belgium or at least to provide B with the necessary information
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Belgium"
- Briefing Document & Podcast: E-Invoicing in Belgium: Scope, Regulations & Future Outlook
- FAQ on E-Invoicing implementation in Belgium
- Belgium Updates VAT Rules for Art, Antiques and Virtual Services
- Montenegro and Moldova Join Common Transit Arrangement from November 1, 2025
- Three months before the mandate takes effect – here’s what businesses need to know
