- The dispute concerns whether an agreement between the claimant and E regarding horses I to V constitutes a “delivery” under Article 3(1)(a) of the Dutch VAT Act.
- The claimant argues it was not a delivery but an arrangement to train and compete with the horses on a trial basis, secured by a €750,000 deposit.
- E later decided to purchase Horse IV for €500,000 (offset against the deposit), while Horse V was returned and Horses I, II, and III remained in Belgium.
- The remaining €250,000 deposit was partially offset by the sale of Horse II and partially not returned due to an injury to Horse I.
- The €750,000 deposit was not correctly recorded in the claimant’s bookkeeping.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.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"
- No rental-plus in case of subletting to conservatory
- Knowledge group: rental of solar roof project does not qualify as rental of immovable property
- Agricultural standards for VAT for private use 2025 in last VAT return 2025
- Annual VAT Corrections in the Netherlands: Understanding the BUA and Private Consumption Rules
- Follow-up Questions on VAT Increase Impact Analysis for Accommodation: Dutch Senate Finance Committee
