- Supreme Court’s Alignment with EU Case Law: The Supreme Court considers its interpretation of the concept of renovation to be fully aligned with the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).
- Amsterdam Court of Appeal’s Decision: The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that the concurrence exemption does not apply to a BV acquiring shares in an OZB legal entity, as the building held by the entity is not considered a manufactured good under turnover tax, and the renovation did not lead to ‘essentially new construction’.
- Supreme Court’s Rejection of Appeal: The Supreme Court rejected the BV’s appeal, affirming that its interpretation of ‘essentially new construction’ and Article 11(3)(b) of the VAT Act 1968 is consistent with the VAT Directive and the CJEU’s Promo judgment.
Source
See also C-239/22 (Belgian State and Promo 54) – Judgment – Condition of the first use of a building
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Land Development VAT and Transfer Tax: How Things Can Go Wrong
- Squash and Padel Court Rentals Are VAT-Exempt
- VAT Deduction Denied; Penalty Reduced Over Reconciliation Differences
- Dutch Court Rules on Own-Building Status in Renovation Works VAT Case
- Hague Court of Appeal Upholds VAT Appeal Admissibility and Legitimate Expectations
