- The case involves a request for a refund that was not made in a timely manner.
- The Inspector interpreted the request as both a complaint about the payment and a request for a refund.
- The Inspector rejected the request due to a missed deadline and because the conditions for a refund were not met.
- The appellant argues that they submitted a supplementary return, not a request, within the allowed timeframe.
- The court determines that the request was not made in a timely manner.
- The court explains the relevant provisions of the tax law regarding refunds.
- It is determined that the appellant did not make the request within the required timeframe.
- The appellant refers to the possibility of submitting a supplementary return within five years after the end of the calendar year.
Source: uitspraken.rechtspraak.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.
