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"
- VAT Deduction Denied: Insufficient Proof of Taxable Activities by Claimant Entrepreneur
- Online Typing Courses for Primary Students Not Exempt from VAT, Rules Gelderland Court
- Preliminary Questions on VAT Transfer of a Going Concern in Real Estate Transactions in the Netherlands
- VAT and the Purchase of a Holiday Home: Key Points and Practical Example for Entrepreneurs
- Typing Courses for Primary School Pupils Subject to 21% VAT: Qualification as Vocational Training?
