- The case involves the application of a reduced VAT rate for the sale of certain products
- The products in question do not have a marketing authorization or parallel trade authorization as required by the Medicines Act
- The taxpayer argues that the products should be subject to the reduced VAT rate, but the tax authority disagrees
- The High Court awaits a ruling from the Supreme Court on a similar case involving a product used for skin conditions
- The Supreme Court ruled that products without a marketing authorization should be subject to the standard VAT rate, not the reduced rate
- The distinction between medicines and medical devices is significant for consumers and justifies different tax treatment
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.
