The burden of proof that there was manifest maladministration lay with the recipient and, according to the Court, he had failed to do so. According to the Court, the recipient had not made it plausible that X could or should have known that the zero rate did not apply. The Court took into account that, in view of the procedure regarding the additional assessment, this was not easy to interpret from a tax point of view. Furthermore, the recipient had not made it plausible that the administration was so incomplete or careless that this should lead to manifestly improper management.
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Balcony Glazing Installation Not Considered Energy-Saving Insulation Under Dutch VAT Law
- Five VAT Knowledge Group Positions Withdrawn Due to New Reduced VAT Rate Decision
- Two VAT Zero-Rate Positions Withdrawn Following New Decision Effective February 2026
- General Supervision Trumps Outsourcing: BV Qualifies as Own Constructor for VAT Reverse Charge Scheme
- VAT reverse charge mechanism and owner-buildership: overall management prevails over full outsourcing
