A disputed invoice can reach far beyond one deduction when company records cannot carry the return.
The corporate income tax assessment arrives exactly as filed. The taxable amount matches the return, so the owner closes the message and returns to customers, staff and cash. Nothing appears to require attention. Months later, an audit reconnects the return to an unpaid advisory invoice. The service behind it cannot be shown. What looked settled is suddenly open again.
That sequence appears in a Dutch corporate tax dispute concerning 2015. The BV reported a taxable amount of €374,423. Its assessment followed automatically. After an audit, the inspector issued a reassessment based on €2,119,352. Among the disputed costs was a €250,000 consulting invoice that had not been paid and was not supported by evidence of a corresponding service.
The matter reached the Supreme Court in case 24/01480, recorded under ECLI:NL:HR:2026:1484. Its practical significance lies beyond the invoice. Dutch tax procedure can move a company into a much heavier evidential position when a substantive defect means that the required return was not filed.
The assessment is not the finish line
Many founders understandably read an assessment as confirmation. The return was submitted, the calculation was accepted and the amount was paid. Yet an assessment issued in line with a return does not necessarily mean that the underlying entries have been reviewed.
Article 16(2)(c) of the Algemene wet inzake rijksbelastingen, or AWR, allows reassessment following a recognisable error. The law includes a presumption of recognisability when the tax undercharged is at least 30 per cent of the tax legally due. That threshold makes an unusually favourable assessment a governance question, not simply welcome news.
The next question is harder. Articles 25 and 27e AWR provide for a heavier burden where the required return was not filed. At the objection or court stage, the taxpayer may then need to demonstrate convincingly that, and to what extent, the assessment is wrong.
The inspector must still work from a reasonable estimate. The process is not a licence for arbitrary correction. But the company’s position has changed.
One invoice is rarely only one invoice
An invoice is an administrative record. It is not, by itself, the commercial event. Someone must still be able to explain what the company bought, why it bought it, who approved the work, what was delivered and why the liability remained unpaid.
This matters especially with advisory work, management charges, restructuring projects and related-party services. These costs are not inherently improper. They are simply harder to see than a machine, a shipment or a month of rent. The evidence may sit across an engagement letter, emails, meeting notes, reports, time records, bank movements and the creditor ledger.
I read the real exposure as a break between those records. A polished invoice can sit correctly in the accounting software while the transaction behind it remains unclear. The annual accounts may then repeat the cost, and the tax return may carry it into taxable profit. Repetition does not strengthen a weak commercial explanation.
The unavoidable question is this: what are we accepting into the return today, and what cash, governance or compliance result will that acceptance produce if the transaction must be explained three years later?
Records must carry the commercial reality
Belastingdienst guidance requires entrepreneurs to maintain records that support timely, correct returns and can be checked within a reasonable period. Those records include invoices, contracts, agreements, messages, bank statements, data files, creditor and debtor records, and reconciliation calculations. Basic records generally have a seven-year retention period.
Retention, however, is only the first layer. A scanned invoice may be complete and authentic as a document while still saying little about delivery. The stronger administration connects the document to a decision and a result. For an unpaid invoice, it should also remain clear whether the liability still exists, whether it is disputed and what later correspondence says.
This is where tax discipline meets company governance. A material, unusual cost needs an owner inside the business. That person need not be a tax specialist. Someone must know why the commitment was made, whether the work arrived and whether the accounting treatment still reflects reality at year-end.
A monthly close protects cash as well as tax
Small companies often postpone this work because the bookkeeper has the invoice and the accountant will review the year. That division of labour feels efficient until nobody owns the facts. External advisers can process records, but they cannot recreate a meeting, confirm delivery or decide whether an old creditor still represents a real obligation.
A sensible monthly or quarterly review therefore looks beyond totals. Old unpaid creditors, unusual year-end costs and large advisory entries deserve a short commercial explanation while memories and messages remain available. The return can then be reconciled with the final accounts without relying on a director’s recollection years later.
The cash consequence also deserves attention. A reassessment may arrive after profits have been distributed, stock has been bought or wages have absorbed the available balance. It can affect tax provisions, dividend room, lender discussions and management time. Clean closing work is not an accounting luxury. It helps prevent uncertain tax positions from quietly entering the cash forecast.
Back at the owner’s desk, the first assessment no longer looks like the end of the process. It is one step in a chain that began with a commercial decision. When that chain remains visible, the company can explain its position calmly. When it breaks, one unsupported cost can force a much wider defence than anyone expected.
If a material cost may not withstand scrutiny, I can help you reconnect the records, governance and tax position before it becomes a dispute.
The data, sourcing, and analysis behind this article were conducted by Linda Pavan Geraedts. AI was not used to identify sources, build the factual basis, or produce the analytical judgment contained here. AI was used only as a drafting aid. The final English text was personally reviewed, edited, and approved by Linda Pavan Geraedts before publication.
References
- Onjuiste aangifte leidt tot omkering voor hele aanslag - Taxence
- Rechtspraak - Supreme Court ruling on full reversal and aggravation of the burden of proof
- Wettenbank - Statutory basis for reassessment and the heavier proof position
- Belastingdienst - Official administration, retention and controllability requirements
- Belastingdienst - Invoice retention and authenticity of digital evidence
- Belastingdienst Newsroom - Current enforcement setting: corrections, audits and business visits
- Parket bij de Hoge Raad via Rechtspraak - Official pre-ruling legal analysis in the same case
- Rechtspraak
