Supreme Court: Possible sufficient evidence of intentional incorrect submission of VAT returns

Failure to Address Key Argument: The Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeal incorrectly overlooked the inspector’s crucial argument regarding the failure of X BV’s Document Management System (DMS) to timely deliver invoices to the intermediary responsible for submitting VAT returns. This oversight meant that the basis for the inspector’s assessment was not adequately considered.
Evidence of Non-Compliance: The Supreme Court found that the available documents supported the inspector’s claim that X BV did not provide the necessary copies of sales invoices to the intermediary in a timely manner. This failure to deliver documentation raises questions about whether X BV’s insufficient VAT payments were due to intentional non-compliance.
Referral for Reassessment: The case has been referred back to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, which must reassess the circumstances surrounding the late submission of invoices. The court is tasked with determining if the failure to pay the correct VAT was due to (conditional) intent on the part of X BV, potentially impacting the assessment of penalties.