- Director major shareholder A and spouse B received salary from BV C and jointly owned a home where they built a workspace on an attached garage in 2018/2019
- The couple formed silent partnership X which rented the workspace to BV C starting January 1 2020 and opted for VAT taxed rental but was denied EUR 12313 VAT refund for September 2019
- Court of Zeeland West Brabant and Court of Appeal Den Bosch agreed that X was an independent entity for VAT purposes and conducted economic activity under Article 9 VAT Directive 2006
- The Court of Appeal ruled that X failed to prove the workspace was used exclusively for business purposes based on photos room setup privacy use declarations and lack of other workspace in the home
- The court rejected arguments about conflict with VAT Directive 2006 stating member states have broad discretion in implementing opt in rights and can exclude certain transactions like residential rental from VAT election options
Source: futd.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.
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Court Rules Low-Care Hospice Room Rentals with Meals Subject to VAT, Allowing Tax Deduction
- Consultation on BPM Refund Changes for Export: Focus on Vehicles Under Twelve Years
- Court Rules in Favor of Tax Deduction for Healthcare Complex Development Costs in Appeal
- Court Rules on Tax Assessment: Rental of Office Room Not Eligible for VAT Deduction
- Pincvision CIO: Combining Technology and Human Behavior for Secure International Trade Data
