Distribution of 1.8 million euros for DGA after transfer by BV to Switzerland

X was a director and sole shareholder (DGA) at BV Y, which operated a travel agency. X was criminally indicted in 2015 for tax fraud because he failed to publicize bank accounts in Luxembourg and was responsible for including fake flight invoices in BV Y’s records. X and BV Y challenged the IB and Vpb tax assessments that had been charged based on the findings of an oversight investigation and FIOD investigation. They argued that the inspector erred in reversing the burden of proof and increased the burden of proof. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court upheld X and BV Y’s appeals with respect to 2001 and no basis for the rest. X and BV Y appealed the veto. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeal wrongly decided in respect of BV Y of 2004 and in respect of X of the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 that the required declarations were not made. The Supreme Court referred the cases to the Court of Den Bosch. The Court of Den Bosch found the corrections made by the inspector reasonable and declared that B. X and BV Y appealed again in cassation and argued that the appellate court had ignored an error in the statement in their conclusion after the order stating that the inspector had violated Section 8:42 Awb. The Supreme Court upheld X and BV Y’s cassation appeals and referred the case to the Amsterdam Court. That reference court held the inspector’s statement that no documents had been withheld and held that the inspector had complied with the obligation arising from Section 8:42 Awb, paragraph 1, because this obligation generally did not go so far as to require the inspector to file documents if those documents were not available to him . Subsequently the court decided objectively that BV Y’s transfer of €1,815,121 to a bank account in Switzerland justified the assumption that this amount benefited X. BV Y had to refute this suspicion and prove its assertion that the transfer amounted to a debt payment for a particular Z company. . The court found BV Y unsuccessful in this proof. Further, the inspector made it reasonable that BV Y had not made the required declaration, so that the burden of proof would have to be reversed and increased. The assessment was based on reasonable judgment and, according to the Court of Appeal, BV Y did not establish that the data on the objection were incorrect. In X, the Court ruled that the 2002, 2003 and 2006 redemption notices should be reduced. The Court did not consider it reasonable to take into account the full amount of interest that X earned in 2002 as a distribution. The court also found it unreasonable to take into account the €11,700 deducted from the Kruisposten Foreign Money account in 2003 as a distribution to X. The valuation for 2006 also had to be lowered because it was not reasonable enough that (the vast majority of ) The flight bills amounts received by X are still owned by X’s assets in 2006. With regard to the assessment for 2004, the court ruled that: The inspector had taxed €1,815,121 as a distribution. The Court of Appeal declared X’s appeal partially sound and BV Y’s appeal unfounded.