The Inspector countered that it could not be deduced from the statements provided that [name6] B.V. performed a service to the interested party. The Inspector argued that [nam6] B.V. never employed any staff. The documents do not mention from whose accounts the item ‘contract price inventory’ mentioned by the interested party originated, and in the name of which legal entity they were made. The Inspector further stated that based on the information provided, it is not possible to verify whether or not the lots/homes mentioned by the interested party with abbreviations from the statements provided by the interested party were sold by the interested party. Therefore, the Inspector disputes that this would have occurred. Furthermore, the Inspector disputes that any services would have been performed by [name9] towards [name6] BV. After all, the statements of costs provided by interested party from Construction Company [name9] show [name7] BV, and not [name6] B.V. Furthermore, the Inspector states that the costs on this invoice were not passed on to interested party by [name6] B.V. on current account. The Inspector is of the opinion that this is a phantom invoice created to fake input tax to the interested party in order to reduce the amount to be remitted to the Tax Authorities.
Source: rechtspraak.nl
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
