- Supreme Court’s Alignment with EU Case Law: The Supreme Court considers its interpretation of the concept of renovation to be fully aligned with the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).
- Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Decision: The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that the concurrence exemption does not apply to a BV acquiring shares in an OZB legal entity, as the building held by the entity is not considered a manufactured good under turnover tax, and the renovation did not lead to ‘essentially new construction’.
- Supreme Court’s Rejection of Appeal: The Supreme Court rejected the BV’s appeal, affirming that its interpretation of ‘essentially new construction’ and Article 11(3)(b) of the VAT Act 1968 is consistent with the VAT Directive and the CJEU’s Promo judgment.
Source
See also C-239/22 (Belgian State and Promo 54) – Judgment – Condition of the first use of a building
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Judge dismisses ChatGPT analysis as evidence of breach of contract
- Court Ruling on VAT Deduction for School Renovation and Penalty Assessment, 20 March 2026
- Dutch Ornamental Horticulture VAT to Rise from 9% to 21% Starting January 2028
- Tax Assessment Upheld for Municipality Due to VAT Abuse in “School Model” Construction Scheme
- Scope of Reverse-Charge Scheme for Subcontracted Agricultural Work on Immovable Property by Contractors
