The plaintiff is based in the Netherlands. She is part of a group of companies established in several Member States. The head office is located in Germany. The services provided to the claimant by the head office and other companies belonging to the group established outside the Netherlands lead to taxation for the claimant. The plaintiff argues that there is an obstacle to the freedom of establishment, because the territorial boundary of the fiscal unity confronts her with taxation that would not otherwise have been there. After all, in the case of a fiscal unity, mutual benefits are not taxed. The court ruled that the plaintiff is not hindered in her freedom of establishment. Nor has it become plausible that there is a similar case with companies that can form a fiscal unity.
Source: rechtspraak.nl
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- Court Ruling on VAT Deduction for School Renovation and Penalty Assessment, 20 March 2026
- Dutch Ornamental Horticulture VAT to Rise from 9% to 21% Starting January 2028
- Tax Assessment Upheld for Municipality Due to VAT Abuse in “School Model” Construction Scheme
- Scope of Reverse-Charge Scheme for Subcontracted Agricultural Work on Immovable Property by Contractors
- Management services for industry-wide pension fund taxed with VAT
