- Brothers A and B held 50% each of the shares in Belgian company X BVBA until February 26, 2014
- On that date, the shares were certified and held by foundation C, led by A and B’s father
- Foundation C purchased several plots of agricultural land in 2000 and a neighboring house from D in 2005
- In October 2007, foundation E bought the house and plots from C
- On the same day, D sold the real estate to foundation F
- In January 2008, X BVBA bought the real estate from F and developed housing on the plots
- In October 2011, X BVBA transferred two plots to shareholders A and B
- An environmental permit was issued for these plots on December 7, 2011
- A and B transferred these plots to foundation G on March 30, 2012
- On December 12, 2011, agreements were made between X BVBA and G for G to buy 34 plots in the housing project
- On the same date, construction contracts were made between BV L and G for building houses on these plots
- X BVBA delivered the 34 plots to G on March 30, 2012
- X BVBA applied a tax exemption on the delivery of the plots to G and A and B
- G sold the plots to private buyers between October 2012 and September 2016, calculating only transfer tax
- The tax inspector accused X BVBA of tax abuse and imposed VAT reassessments
- X BVBA appealed but the Court of Zeeland-West Brabant ruled against it, citing the transactions as purely artificial aimed at tax benefits
- The court found the transactions did not reflect economic or commercial reality and were intended to misuse the tax exemption facility
- The court concluded that the transactions had no substantial purpose other than obtaining a tax advantage for X BVBA
- The court ruled that the tax benefit obtained by X BVBA was contrary to the intended purpose of the tax exemption facility
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.
