The court decided that a Swiss bank is not a Dutch tax agent

The court of The Hague ruled that the burden of proof for 2008 to 2014 will be reversed and increased. X vainly states that he assumed that the Swiss bank would pay withholding tax. His single statement that the return in 2013 and 2014 was less than 4% is also not sufficient.

For 2006 to 2014, X was subject to additional claims in the IB sphere due to a concealed bank balance in Switzerland. In addition, for 2006 to 2012, fines were imposed totalling 132,722. It is not in dispute that X had the account in question until 2007. For the remaining years, the inspector followed the bank’s performance statements.

The court of The Hague ruled that the burden of proof for 2008 to 2014 will be reversed and increased. X vainly states that he assumed that the bank would pay withholding tax.

In this light, it is then only in dispute whether the capital return levy of 2013 and 2014 is an individual and excessive burden in this case. X has not given a good insight into his entire income and capital position of those years. His single statement that the return was less than 4% is not enough. For exceeding the reasonable period, fines are mitigated by 15%. The actions are well founded only to that extent.