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"
- No Reduced VAT Rate for Nightclub Entry Fees with DJ Performances, Court Rules
- Tax Plan 2026: Reduced VAT Rate for Culture, Media, and Sports Retained
- Proposed VAT Revision Rules for Renovation Services Starting 2026: Key Changes and Implications
- VAT deduction apartment: business office or home? Ruling on actual use and the principle of equality
- Budget 2026: VAT Rate Reversals, Property Rules & Cross-Border Compliance
