- X is a company involved in investments, real estate transactions, and rental services.
- X entered into a purchase agreement with a foundation for the sale of new apartments.
- X issued invoices to the foundation for the first seven installments of the purchase price, including VAT.
- However, X did not pay the VAT to the tax authorities.
- The tax inspector imposed a tax assessment and a penalty.
- The Court of Appeal ruled that X is liable for VAT under Article 37 of the VAT Act, even if no taxable transaction was performed.
- The fact that X issued a credit invoice does not prove otherwise.
- The tax inspector conducted an interview with X for a liability investigation, but failed to provide the report in violation of the law.
- The report indicated that X was not given the right to remain silent.
- The Court disregarded the report in assessing the penalty due to the violation of X’s right to remain silent.
- The tax inspector based the penalty on the argument that X “should have known better,” but this does not prove gross negligence.
- The Court concluded that the penalty was wrongly imposed.
- The tax assessment is upheld in favor of the tax inspector, while the penalty is ruled in favor of X.
Source: nlfiscaal.nl
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
