The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court ruled that the notification of 28 January 2021 is not a refund decision, but an ex officio refund. Since no objection was possible, the inspector was right to declare the objection against that communication inadmissible. In 2006, X bv licensed a trademark to Q bv, and in 2008 concluded an agreement related to a VAT refund. A nv bought the claim and the right to a VAT refund from X bv for €1.8 million. X bv requested a VAT refund of €1.8 million in 2012, but ultimately the refund was set at €878,000. X bv objected to this, but the objection was declared inadmissible. The court ruled that both the objection against the 2021 notification and the 2013 refund decision were rightly declared inadmissible. The court also stated that X bv is bound by the agreement to transfer the VAT claim and cannot be put in a better position by means of the objection.
Source Taxlive
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT Liability of Dutch Kadaster’s Tactical Management Services for DSO-LV under Economic Activity Criteria
- Court Divided on VAT Abuse: Car Sales to Directors at Below-Market Prices and Tax Implications
- Dutch Supreme Court: Abuse of Law in VAT on Underpriced Car Sale by Holding Company to DGA
- Dutch Supreme Court Rejects VAT Refund Appeal; Lower Court Ruling Upheld Without Further Explanation
- Netherlands Raises VAT on Short-Stay Accommodation to 21% Effective January 2026
