- A VAT fiscal unit (f.e.) X included holding company BV A and its subsidiaries BV B and BV C.
- BV B, involved in metal trading, was declared bankrupt in November 2022.
- X requested VAT refunds for transactions between BV B and four entrepreneurs from March 2020 to February 2022.
- The tax inspector denied the refunds, alleging the four entrepreneurs committed VAT fraud and that BV B was aware of this.
- X appealed the decision, but the court ruled against X, citing procedural issues with late evidence submission by the inspector.
- The court dismissed X’s claim that invoices and agreements provided sufficient proof of goods delivered to BV B.
- The invoices were self-billed by BV B and were claimed to be paid through offsetting with other invoices.
- The court found X did not demonstrate that other entrepreneurs had actually delivered goods to BV B, which is necessary for VAT deduction rights.
- The inspector contested the transactions, noting discrepancies in reported VAT and issues with the entrepreneurs’ VAT identification.
- The court also rejected X’s argument that the inspector took too long to issue the denial and that this hindered X’s ability to provide evidence.
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.
