- A-G Wattel identifies tensions between fiscal and criminal law criteria for intent and incorrectness, and EU and national fiscal criteria for denying the VAT zero rate.
- X, commercial director of A BV since June 2014, and his brothers are involved in VAT fraud by falsely claiming the zero rate for intra-community supplies and falsifying records.
- X is sentenced to 27 months in prison, with 6 months suspended, and fined 100,000 euros, with an alternative of 365 days detention.
- The involvement of X in the fraud is evidenced by WhatsApp messages.
- A-G Wattel suggests the Supreme Court should clarify the criteria for denying the zero rate for legal certainty.
- Fiscal law requires only that it is plausible the real buyers did not file VAT returns or pay VAT, without needing to identify all involved in the fraud.
- Criminal law requires proof that A BV consciously accepted the risk of incorrect VAT filing, but not that a specific buyer committed VAT fraud.
- The court found A BV guilty of VAT fraud, making the question of whether it should have known about others’ fraud somewhat academic.
Source: taxlive.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
