- Ruling Against Collective Investment Classification: The Court of Appeal of The Hague determined that Stichting X, an occupational pension fund, cannot be classified as “assets raised for collective investment” under Article 11(1)(i)(3) of the VAT Act 1968, as it failed to demonstrate that participants face risks comparable to those in collective investment schemes.
- Emphasis on Investment Risk: The court highlighted that X’s focus on investment results rather than investment risk undermines its claim. The relevant legal interpretation requires that participants share risks akin to those of collective investment assets, which X did not sufficiently prove.
- Rejection of Comparisons to Defined Contribution Funds: The court dismissed X’s argument equating its structure to that of a Defined Contribution pension fund, noting that participants do not directly and fully experience the variances in investment performance, which further disqualifies X from the collective investment classification.
Sources:
See also
- C-639/22 & others – Interpretation of VAT exemption for pension funds
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”Exemption” – Management of special investment funds” (Art. 135(1)(g)) – VATupdate
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Remuneration for publication rights taxed at the general VAT rate
- Organization of race training services is composite service for VAT purposesGerman Race Training at Zandvoort Subject to German VAT Despite Dutch Location
- Former Director Cannot Object to VAT Assessments Imposed on Company After Resignation
- Hotels and Vacation Rentals Absorb VAT Hike, Bookings Remain Stable Despite Higher Tax
- Dutch Government Loses €1 Billion Annually as Drivers Fuel Up Across Borders Due to Price Gap
