It is precisely X’s laconic reaction to the warning (formulated in a fairly general sense) and his laxity/negligence in taking his tax obligations in this respect seriously, according to the Court of Appeal, should have prompted B to take additional measures, all the more because the reaction of X, in any case, it clearly emerged that the border for making a declaration in Belgium had been exceeded. However, the Court agreed with B that the damage that had occurred was also the result of X’s own negligence, once warned, to arrange for VAT returns in Belgium or at least to provide B with the necessary information
Source: FUTD
Latest Posts in "Belgium"
- Webinar pincvision: Belgium eInvoicing – All You Need to Know (Oct 2)
- Belgium to decommission the Hermes invoicing platform
- VAT Consult – Up to Date with VAT – 4 sessions in Belgium
- Webinar MDDP: E-invoicing for SMEs – upcoming changes in Poland, Germany and Belgium (Sept 9)
- New VAT Guidelines for Mixed-Use Buildings Effective July 1, 2025
