05836 represents a specific, individual, material embodiment of a distinct intellectual or artistic creation found in International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation.
This item is available to borrow from 1 library branch.

Summary: Judgment by Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), judgment date 6 January 2017. The taxpayer, a Dutch resident national, had worked for a Dutch employer in the Netherlands and in Germany since 2003. On 12 March 2007 he subsequently received a severance payment which he partially allocated to Germany. The tax inspector adjusted this allocation on the basis of a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Netherlands and Germany on the taxation of severance payments. As a result, a larger portion of the severance payment was allocated to Germany. The taxpayer received a supplementary assessment in Germany because he had not declared the portion of his severance payment in that country. The taxpayer appealed, arguing that the application of the MoU was incompatible with the treaty or that the amount granted for the avoidance of double taxation should have been larger. The Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal stating that the 2007 MoU is incompatible with the treaty. The significance of this case is that it clarifies that a clear division of taxing rights agreed under a tax treaty cannot be subsequently altered by an MoU

Work

Summary: Judgment by Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), judgment date 6 January 2017. The taxpayer, a Dutch resident national, had worked for a Dutch employer in the Netherlands and in Germany since 2003. On 12 March 2007 he subsequently received a severance payment which he partially allocated to Germany. The tax inspector adjusted this allocation on the basis of a 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Netherlands and Germany on the taxation of severance payments. As a result, a larger portion of the severance payment was allocated to Germany. The taxpayer received a supplementary assessment in Germany because he had not declared the portion of his severance payment in that country. The taxpayer appealed, arguing that the application of the MoU was incompatible with the treaty or that the amount granted for the avoidance of double taxation should have been larger. The Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal stating that the 2007 MoU is incompatible with the treaty. The significance of this case is that it clarifies that a clear division of taxing rights agreed under a tax treaty cannot be subsequently altered by an MoU