- Municipality X entered into a framework agreement in 2005 with housing association C, contractor D, and an educational foundation for the development of a construction site with a school
- X claimed €87,156 in VAT deduction that had been charged by other businesses
- X sold the school building to C in 2009 for €550,000 and requested a refund of €626,922
- Tax inspector imposed a tax assessment for the deducted VAT, X appealed
- The Hague Court ruled against X’s appeal, but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appeal
- Amsterdam Court ruled that X did not receive compensation for the school and the transfer did not take place under onerous title
- X appealed again and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appeal again
- The Supreme Court concluded from the Fenix case that contractual provisions reflect the economic and commercial reality of transactions
- The principle of abuse of law ensures that the consequences of contractual provisions are not linked to artificial structures
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.
