- The burden of proof for the right to tax deductions rests on the taxpayer
- The court finds that the taxpayer has not convincingly demonstrated that they have been operating the pharmacy since January 1, 2017
- The taxpayer does not have an AGB code in their own name for billing health insurers
- It is undisputed that another company reported the pharmacy revenue from January 2017 to September 2018 in their VAT returns
- The taxpayer’s claim of billing patients from October 2018 is not sufficiently substantiated
- Merely reporting revenue and related costs in financial statements does not prove taxable transactions for VAT purposes during the disputed periods
- No retroactive effect is given to asset-liability transactions for VAT assessment
- The taxpayer has not performed taxable transactions in the relevant periods, thus the basis for their claims is invalid
- The tax inspector correctly imposed the additional tax assessments on the taxpayer
- The taxpayer argues that the charged interest on taxes should be reduced by at least half due to the lengthy processing time by the tax inspector
- The inspector responded that the delay was justified due to the complexity of the matter and necessary onsite visits, which were delayed by COVID-19 restrictions
- The court notes regular contact between the parties from October 1, 2019, until the announcement of the tax assessments
- Despite a 7-month gap in communication, earlier contact would not have allowed for sooner tax assessments due to pandemic-related delays
- The court concludes that the inspector did not violate principles of proper administration and sees no reason to adjust the tax interest charges based on processing time
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.
