The fact that, ultimately, a transaction exempt from VAT is carried out does not mean that everything and everyone involved in such a transaction is automatically entitled to apply the VAT exemption.
Proof
Amsterdam Court of Appeal has confirmed that a business that supplies staff to (home) care organisations provides services that are subject to VAT because they do not qualify for the VAT exemption.
The tax court begins by stating that a trader claiming a VAT exemption must prove that the supplies meet the conditions for that exemption. So far, nothing new.
The entrepreneur enters into cooperation agreements and contracts for services with the (home) care organisations. The entrepreneur takes the view that, as a (sub)contractor, he provides the care services. The tax court concludes from the fact that the entrepreneur had contractually excluded liability for the services that there can be no question of a (sub-)contractual relationship. Furthermore, the tax court concludes from the manner in which the rate agreements are reached, the invoicing method and the flow of goods that the entrepreneur’s conduct is more consistent with the provision of staff. The VAT exemption for (home) care does not apply.
Childcare
A similar issue arises in a case in which the Gelderland District Court has handed down its judgment. This case concerns a self-employed person who offers her services as a childcare worker to childcare organisations via a platform. The Court found that the self-employed person provided her services to the childcare centre and not (directly) to the children or their parents. According to the Court, the service “childcare” encompasses more than the services provided by the self-employed person.
Locum dentist
The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal has ruled on a case in which a locum dentist had entered into contracts for services with a number of dental practices. The dental treatments carried out by the locum dentist under these agreements are paid for directly by the patient to the locum dentist. In addition, the locum dentist receives remuneration from the affiliated practices for being available as a locum.
The case concerns the latter fees. The Court of Appeal upholds the District Court’s ruling that these fees do not constitute a medical service and are therefore not covered by the medical VAT exemption, but are subject to VAT.