The supplementary obligation of Article 10a AWR, which obliges entrepreneurs to repair VAT returns that are too low, does not conflict with the nemo-tenetur principle. The Supreme Court has ruled that.1The fact that a supplement may give rise to the suspicion that a fine, under-declaration was previously made, is not of decisive importance in this regard. However, the supplement form submitted must be excluded from the evidence that a finable or criminal offense has been committed. The judgment does not explicitly prohibit the Inspector from imposing fines if, as a result of a supplement, he initiates an investigation from which it follows that there is intent or gross negligence for late supplementation of VAT or incorrect filing of previous returns. However, the outcome of such an investigation may also need to be excluded from evidence as a ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’. In this contribution, I further explain the judgment and discuss two undecided legal questions in the field of VAT supplementation.
Source nlfiscaal
