About the iPad in the Christmas gift tax must now be paid. Lees here the ruling of the Supreme Court.
The judgment means that employers who pay their staff do an iPad gift on that payroll. RTL Netherlands donated 664 workers just before Christmas 2010 an iPad worth 699 euros. The media company had about this donation 323 687 euro salary deduction to the tax authorities. RTL found that iPads under the partial tax exemption for ‘business use’ of ‘communication tools’ were therefore demanded 239 528 euros (74 percent) back from the tax authorities.
The tax inspector refused the refund because the RTL staff iPads would use mainly private. Nor would an iPad in any legal sense of communication, but a “computer” are. For the latter category the tax rules are much stricter. Employers that their employees’ computers and similar equipment “shall not be required to pay income tax if the employee computer store used almost exclusively for his work. In all other cases, the employer payroll tax is payable
State Wiebes of Finance. © Reuters
But if an iPad falls into the category of ‘telephone, Internet and other means of communication – the position of RTL – does the employer only to show that the business use’ of more than incidental interest “in order to qualify for the tax exemption. RTL Netherlands submitted to the judges using a survey of 31 employees as evidence. It gave a majority to the iPad at least 10 percent of the time to use for work.
After the Tax Office’s request for tax refund was finally rejected, RTL went to court to get his right. The court in Haarlem, the Tax Administration said in November 2012 in the same. RTL won in September 2014 appeal to the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam, after Secretary Wiebe of Finance in cassation went to the Supreme Court.
That highest court has now handed down the final judgment, against which no appeal is possible . The Supreme Court finds the iPad a computer, because people there “mainly perform computer tasks with it.” Because of his versatility is an iPad much more with a computer than with a much more limited smartphone, according to the justices.