The Court does not believe that the discount should be regarded as compensation for services provided by the hospitals to X, consisting in promoting / recommending the products to patients. According to the Court, the amounts should be seen as discounts for supplies of goods by X. In line with ECJ C-102/86 Apple and Pear Development Council, there is not such a link since the discounts relate only to the number and type of products purchased.
Source
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- No Penalty for VAT Evasion Aimed at Another EU Member State, Supreme Court Rules
- No Penalty for VAT Fraud in Other EU State Without Intent to Evade Dutch VAT
- No Penalty for VAT Fraud Involving Other EU States, Supreme Court Rules Under Article 67f AWR
- VAT Deduction for Home Office Possible, Even with Limited Private Use: Court Ruling Explained
- Supreme Court Affirms VAT Fraud Conviction: No Room for Defense in Carousel Scheme
