Dutch Court Confirms VAT Entrepreneurship for Director Renting Home Workspaces to His Company

Summary

The ’s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal held that a director-major shareholder who made workspaces and a garage in his private home available to his company for remuneration carried out an economic activity for VAT purposes. [taxence.nl], [futd.nl]
The spaces had been rented for approximately fifteen years under a written agreement, with a monthly payment of EUR 2,000. The court considered this sustained exploitation of property for income, notwithstanding that the rooms formed part of the director’s home. [taxence.nl], [futd.nl]
The director acted independently of his employment relationship and could therefore be included with his holding company and operating company in a Dutch VAT group. [taxence.nl]

Extended article

The ’s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal has clarified when the rental of rooms in a director’s private home to their own company constitutes an independent economic activity for VAT purposes.

The individual owned a home containing a workroom, garage, office space, archive space and sanitary facilities. A written rental agreement had been concluded with the company, and the company paid EUR 2,000 per month. The arrangement had continued for approximately fifteen years. [taxence.nl], [futd.nl]

The Dutch tax authority argued that the director was not independently carrying on a VAT-taxable economic activity and should not form part of a VAT group with the holding and operating companies.

The Court of Appeal rejected that position. The sustained availability of the spaces in return for regular payment constituted exploitation of property for the purpose of obtaining income on a continuing basis. The fact that the rooms were part of a private dwelling and could also be reached by other occupants did not remove the economic character of the arrangement. [taxence.nl]

The court also found that the rental activity was independent. The director’s shareholding, management position and employment relationship did not mean that the rental was performed as part of the employment relationship. The written rental agreement and monthly payments supported the conclusion that the property was made available separately from the director’s employment. [taxence.nl]

The director therefore qualified as a VAT entrepreneur and could form a VAT group with the holding and operating companies, subject to the other statutory requirements.

The case is relevant where private property is used by a group company. It confirms that actual duration, contractual documentation, recurring consideration and separation from the employment relationship are important factors. It does not establish that every home-office arrangement automatically creates VAT entrepreneurship.

The judgment is identified as Court of Appeal ’s-Hertogenbosch, 15 July 2026, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2026:1840, case 24/852. [taxence.nl]

External links