The Bottom Line
- Inconsistent data is a major risk: When importing vehicles into the Netherlands, relying on reference data that doesn’t perfectly match the imported car’s specifications—especially its CO2 emissions—can lead to significant and successful challenges from tax authorities.
- The burden of proof is on the importer: If the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration questions the figures used for your import tax (BPM) calculation, your company bears the burden of proving their accuracy. Simple assertions without hard evidence won’t hold up in court.
- Procedural delays can mean compensation: Even if you lose a case on its merits, you may still be entitled to financial compensation if the legal proceedings exceed a “reasonable term,” offering a partial remedy for lengthy disputes.
The Details
A Dutch company importing a used Nissan Qashqai recently learned a costly lesson about data accuracy in vehicle import tax (BPM) declarations. The dispute began after the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration challenged the CO2 emissions figure used in the company’s initial tax filing. The authority recalculated the tax based on a significantly higher CO2 value (179 g/km WLTP vs. the declared 130 g/km NEDC), resulting in a supplementary tax bill of €1,151. Rather than disputing the new CO2 value, the company argued that this higher emission figure should logically lead to a higher “historical list price”—a key variable that could potentially lower the final tax due after depreciation.
The court’s decision hinged entirely on the burden of proof. The importer’s claim for a higher list price was based on a reference vehicle from a commercial valuation database. However, the tax authority identified a critical flaw: the reference vehicle in the database had a listed CO2 emission of 160 g/km, a full 19 g/km lower than the car actually being imported. The court agreed with the tax authority, ruling that this discrepancy was significant enough to cast doubt on whether the two vehicles were truly comparable. This shifted the burden of proof squarely onto the importer to demonstrate why the reference data was still valid despite the mismatch.
Ultimately, the importer failed to provide the necessary evidence. The company argued that the difference in CO2 values was merely a result of using two different measurement methods (NEDC vs. WLTP). However, the court found this claim to be an unsubstantiated assertion. Without concrete proof, it was just as plausible that the discrepancy was due to differences in the vehicle’s specific model, equipment, or version. Because the importer could not definitively prove its case, the court upheld the tax authority’s reassessment. In a small silver lining, the court did award the company €1,500 in damages for the excessive duration of the legal proceedings, confirming that procedural oversight can still provide some financial relief.
Source
Source: Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant
