- Expediteur X acted as a direct representative of A, who had an Article 23 license
- In 2016, X used A’s VAT number under this license for customs declarations to release various goods into free circulation
- No VAT was charged as the declarations stated the goods were intended for A
- During an audit, B’s client stated the shipments were mistakenly declared under A’s tax number
- A confirmed no involvement in these imports and reported identity fraud and forgery by C, the sole director and owner of B
- The tax inspector issued a VAT assessment to X for unpaid VAT
- X appealed, arguing that the VAT should have been collected from A by the competent tax inspector due to the reverse charge mechanism
- Amsterdam Court disagreed with X, noting A was not involved in the imports and did not order the goods
- The goods varied widely and did not match A’s business of trading toys, thus Article 23 conditions were not met and the reverse charge mechanism was not applied
- VAT could not be shifted under Article 23 and should be assessed according to Article 22, following customs law
- X was deemed to have made the declarations in her own name and account as she lacked authority to act as A’s direct representative
- The court upheld the VAT assessment against X and rejected her argument against the calculation of interest on the VAT due
- The Supreme Court confirmed that interest on arrears was applicable to VAT on imports as per Article 22 and DWU Article 114, Section 2
- The court dismissed X’s appeal as unfounded
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.
