- BV X provided asset management services in the Middle East and North Africa.
- BV X and its CEO Y were criminally prosecuted in 2013.
- BV X was accused of forgery, money laundering, and filing incorrect tax returns.
- CEO Y was accused of leading or co-perpetrating money laundering and filing incorrect personal tax returns.
- Lawyer A provided legal assistance for CEO Y’s criminal case on behalf of BV X.
- BV X deducted VAT on Lawyer A’s invoices, which the tax inspector disputed.
- The court initially ruled against BV X, stating the costs were not directly related to its economic activities.
- BV X appealed, and the Amsterdam Court ruled the services were partly for business promotion, allowing VAT deduction.
- However, the deduction was denied based on specific tax law articles, considering the legal assistance as a gift.
- BV X appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed the Amsterdam Court overstepped its bounds.
- The Supreme Court found the Amsterdam Court had independently established facts not argued by the parties.
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.
