The Bottom Line
- Inaccurate Data is a Liability: Relying on reference vehicle data from valuation reports is risky if key specifications, like CO2 emissions, do not precisely match the imported vehicle. Discrepancies can invalidate the entire valuation basis.
- The Burden of Proof is on the Importer: If the tax authority challenges your figures, your company must provide solid evidence to justify its declared values. Simply asserting that a reference model is comparable, without further proof, is insufficient.
- Risk of Significant Tax Adjustments: A correction in a single data point (like CO2 emissions) can trigger a substantial supplementary tax assessment, creating unforeseen costs and disrupting financial planning for vehicle fleets or inventory.
The Details
This case centered on the Dutch import tax (BPM) for a used BMW X3. The importing company filed a tax declaration based on a valuation report that used a reference vehicle with a CO2 emission of 168 g/km. The Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, however, determined the actual CO2 emission of the vehicle was 231 g/km. This significant difference prompted the authority to issue a supplementary tax assessment for an additional €2,875, as the import tax is heavily linked to CO2 output.
In a novel legal strategy, the company did not dispute the corrected CO2 figure. Instead, it argued that if the CO2 value was higher, the vehicle’s original historical list price in the Netherlands would also have been higher, as this price includes the tax itself. The company attempted to use the net catalogue price from its initial, low-CO2 reference vehicle to recalculate this higher historical price. The aim was to adjust the depreciation calculation in their favour. This approach sought to turn the tax authority’s correction into a tool to re-evaluate the entire tax base.
The District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant decisively rejected the company’s argument. The judges ruled that a reference vehicle with a CO2 emission level that is 63 g/km lower cannot be considered a valid proxy for the actual imported car. Such a large discrepancy, the court reasoned, likely indicates a different engine, trim, or equipment level, making the two vehicles fundamentally incomparable. The burden was on the importer to prove the validity of its chosen net catalogue price, and it failed to do so. The court upheld the tax authority’s supplementary assessment, confirming that importers cannot cherry-pick data from non-comparable reference models to construct a favourable tax position.
Source
Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant
