- The Court of Amsterdam confirmed that only changes in the structural construction can justify the conclusion that a renovation has been so extensive that a new building has essentially been created
- The overlap exemption does not apply
- X BV acquired the shares in Y BV in 2018, which owns a office building that was renovated for €25.2 million in 2016-2017
- Despite the significant investments, the overlap exemption does not apply as no newly manufactured immovable property was created
- The number of changes in the structural construction was limited, as demonstrated by the inspector
- The Court referred to a previous ruling by the Supreme Court and emphasized that member states can determine the conditions for applying the criterion ‘for first use’ themselves
- X BV’s direct appeal to article 12 paragraph 2 of the VAT Directive was rejected
- The appeal was dismissed as unfounded.
Source: taxlive.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.
