- X, an emigrated VAT entrepreneur, provides services in the Netherlands
- The inspector concludes that X, despite emigrating, carries out VAT-taxable supplies and services in the Netherlands
- X operates an ICT business as a sole proprietorship
- X moved to the Seychelles and did not provide requested information to the inspector
- The inspector imposed information requests, followed by a VAT assessment for 2013 and a tax interest decision
- X appealed, disputing the amount of the VAT assessment
- The court ruled in favor of the inspector, stating that X had a burden of proof due to lack of information
- The inspector correctly determined that X’s business was in the Netherlands and all services were provided there
- The VAT assessment was based on bank transactions, including those related to the Seychelles company
- X failed to prove the assessment was too high
- The court denied X’s request for a hearing extension due to X’s failure to provide correct contact information
- X’s appeal was dismissed
Source: taxlive.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.
