- The taxpayer failed to prove that the recipient of the services ([F]) was established outside the EU; the main place of management and central administration was found to be in the Netherlands.
- The taxpayer could not be considered to have acted in good faith regarding the place of establishment of [F], as they had detailed knowledge of [F]’s operations.
- The services provided by the taxpayer did not qualify as “intermediation” (bemiddeling) for VAT purposes, as the activities did not meet the criteria for facilitating the conclusion of contracts between two parties.
- The court adopted the lower court’s reasoning and found no grounds to overturn the previous decision.
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"
- Dutch Supreme Court Refers Key VAT Real Estate Questions to CJEU, Creating Market Uncertainty
- Dispute Over VAT on Final Payment for Business Transfer and Software Use Agreement, Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court 2025
- General Court Excise T-690/24 (Kolinsen) – Judgment – Member State of arrival competent to levy excise duty in the event of irregularity detected on arrival
- Dutch Court Denies VAT Deduction for Crypto Platform Over Lack of Direct Service to Non-EU Clients
- No VAT Fiscal Unity: Foundation and BV Lack Required Financial Interdependence, Court Rules
