X sells a horse in 2012 and applies the zero export rate. The buyer, company Z, sells the horse to company Y. The carrier transports the horse from Belgium, via the Netherlands, to the United States. The inspector argues that the export is not related to the supply, refuses the application of the zero rate and imposes an additional assessment for 2012. X argues that the sale of Z to Y cannot be enforced against it because X delivers directly to Y in the United States. X appeals.
The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court ruled that the inspector was right to impose the additional assessment. X does not make it plausible that the export takes place in the context of the delivery, partly because there is no written sales agreement and the parties state that they differ. X’s position that in that case there is a delivery in Belgium also fails. The appeal is founded on a recalculation of the additional assessment.
Source
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Netherlands: Shadow Accounting Triggers Reversed Burden of Proof and VAT Assessments
- Netherlands: FIOD Arrests Man in €240,000 EU VAT Carousel Fraud Probe
- Dutch entrepreneur disputes €33,000 VAT debt in accountant disciplinary case
- Netherlands Urged to Speed Up E-Invoicing to Combat VAT Fraud
- Netherlands: VAT Assessment on Furnished Holiday Rentals and Small Business Scheme Misuse
