The court ruled that these were ‘ghost invoices’, and that X bv could not deduct the input tax. According to the court, X bv does not make it plausible that there are services that have been provided to the payments. The activities of the interested party, X bv, consist of the recruitment and selection, and the broadcasting and secondment of technical personnel. According to the court, X bv did not keep track of how many and which temporary employees were provided. Nor is it specified at what period the invoices relate. The court also notes that the overviews of the posted workers do not correspond with the invoices. The appeal is unfounded.
Source: taxlive.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Netherlands 2026 Tax Plan: VAT Reversal, Property Rules, and Cross-Border Compliance Changes
- Court Ruling on Customs Debt Liability and Warehouse Regulation Compliance in Noord-Holland Case
- Supreme Court Ruling on VAT Refund Request and Objection Admissibility, September 12, 2025
- Court Denies Zero VAT Rate for Intra-Community Supplies Due to Insufficient Evidence
- Court Ruling on Tax Assessment and EU Defense Rights Principle Compliance
