- The dispute is whether the objections or requests for discretionary refund have been declared inadmissible or rejected.
- The plaintiffs disagree with the defendant’s refusal to refund them VAT. They argue that the requests were made after 20 years because it was only then that it became clear that the sale(s) of agricultural land under a resolutive condition had to be reversed, along with the implications for VAT. They also claim that the defendant did not submit all relevant documents and should have treated the letters as general requests under the General Administrative Law (Awb).
- The defendant has disputed the plaintiffs’ claims.
- The court finds that the defendant has made reasonable efforts to locate all relevant documents but has been unsuccessful. The court also notes that the plaintiffs have not specified which specific documents are missing. Therefore, the court concludes that the defendant has not violated the Awb.
- The court interprets the letters as either objections to the payments made or requests for discretionary refund.
- The court determines that the objections are inadmissible because they were made more than 20 years after the payments were made and there is no justifiable reason for the delay. The court also states that it does not have jurisdiction over the discretionary refund requests.
- The court rejects the argument that the defendant should treat the requests as general applications under the Awb.
- The court rules that the objections are inadmissible and declares itself without jurisdiction over the discretionary refund decisions.
- No costs are awarded.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.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.
