- X bought a new apartment in March 2008 and claimed the VAT for the construction in his tax returns.
- The tax inspector conducted an investigation and found that X was not registered at the address and had lived abroad during a certain period.
- The inspector imposed VAT assessments for the years 2014 to 2018, claiming that the apartment was used for exempt rental to individuals.
- X appealed the assessments and argued that he was not informed about being registered in the Fraud Signaling Provision.
- The court ruled in favor of the inspector, stating that there was no evidence of discrimination and that X had not proven that he had a legitimate expectation of no reassessment.
- The court also found that X could not have expected no reassessment for the VAT in 2014.
- The inspector had initially reassessed the full VAT in 2010, but later withdrew it based on X’s statement about short-term rentals.
- X labeling the apartment as a business asset and the acceptance by the inspector did not create a legitimate expectation of no reassessment.
- The use of the apartment for business activities eligible for VAT deduction was not proven.
Source: futd.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.
