The plaintiff is based in the Netherlands. She is part of a group of companies established in several Member States. The head office is located in Germany. The services provided to the claimant by the head office and other companies belonging to the group established outside the Netherlands lead to taxation for the claimant. The plaintiff argues that there is an obstacle to the freedom of establishment, because the territorial boundary of the fiscal unity confronts her with taxation that would not otherwise have been there. After all, in the case of a fiscal unity, mutual benefits are not taxed. The court ruled that the plaintiff is not hindered in her freedom of establishment. Nor has it become plausible that there is a similar case with companies that can form a fiscal unity.
Source: rechtspraak.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- VAT Exemption for Joint Municipal Arrangements: Benefits and Application of the Dutch “Koepelvrijstelling”
- No SPUK-Sport Subsidy for Physical Education Use of Sports Facilities, Rules Council of State
- VAT and BCF Rules for Ukrainian Refugee Shelter: Dutch Tax Authority Clarifies for Municipalities
- No VAT Due on Municipal Crisis Asylum Shelter; Costs Compensable via VAT Compensation Fund
- No VAT on Pension Premiums for Now, Says State Secretary for Finance
