Eurythmy therapist services are not exempt from VAT | financially updated

Fiscaal up to Date

X is practiced as a heat processor. He was not registered as a Medical Assistant Practitioner within the meaning of the BIG Act, but was a registered member of the Dutch Association of Lithotherapy. X paid VAT on the overall rate for Q3 2018 and later objected because he considered his services to be medical services for which the medical exemption applies. The inspector and the District Court in Nord-Holland did not agree with X. The court initially stated that the exceptions must be interpreted accurately and that it was up to X to prove that the exemption from medical treatment also applied to the services he provided. According to the court, it was concluded from the legal text and from the decision of March 29, 2016 that the service must meet the following cumulative requirements for the application of the exemption. The service was: (1) relating to human health care, (2) being provided to an individual patient, and (3) being provided by medical professionals who have professional qualifications to ensure that those services are of a quality level equivalent to that required. A great professional practitioner quality level. The court ruled that the first two conditions were satisfied, but not the third. According to the court, movement therapy was an anthroposophical movement therapy with the goal of improving the patient’s health and supporting the healing process. To this end, rhythmic and flowing movements, sounds (language) and music were sometimes used during the treatment. Treatment can be applied to a variety of physical and psychological complaints, but also to behavioral and developmental programmes. Treatment also aims to restore cohesion of the body and mind for all types of syndromes. So the basis of heat therapy lies in dance. The court found that dance training formed the basis for curative treatment and was insufficient to determine the existence of medical training and medical treatment on the basis of it. According to the court, there was no comparison with the treatments and procedures that psychologists, psychiatrists, therapeutic educators, and psychiatric nurses perform. As X was not a BIG-registered professional, whether he was still providing his services at an equivalent quality level had to be assessed on an uptake basis from the European Court of Justice ruling in the Solleveld case or the 29 March 2016 decision. According to the court, this was not the case. . X was educated in Switzerland, and this education in the Netherlands was not seen as equivalent to a bachelor’s degree in higher professional education. Nor did the training in Switzerland have a declaration or recognition from a Dutch institution. Moreover, X did not make it reasonable to recognize Swiss training in Switzerland. Finally, the fact that X had a Diploma in Basic Medical Knowledge since 2016 and thus fulfilled the Education, Training and Organizational Platform (PLATO) requirements, either alone or in combination with other X courses, was not sufficient to apply from the exemption.

See also  COVID-19 cases in Australia set new record as debate rages over 're-opening'

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *