|
Arnhem District Court Cc Tax and Customs Administration,
Appeal in case number 07 / 359 27 97
Dear Arnhem Court, This appeal comprises the following elements:
1.1 Events giving rise to the case
1.1 Events giving rise to the case No additional information. 1.2 Facts Some additional information: De Hutte Holding BV’s income in 2007 comprised: Interest on bank balances: I will send this information to the Arnhem court as soon as I have received it from my accountant. Interest EURL Petit Château de Roquetaillade – Aveyron: ditto. Please see enclosure II for information on 2005.
In its ruling, the court stated the following: The subject matter of the dispute is whether the respondent was right in including the interest payments received by the plaintiff in the taxable profits.
1.4. Assessment of the dispute The ruling of 17 April 2008 reads: It was confirmed during the court session on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff did indeed draw interest on the bank balances and claims on EURL in the year in question. This income deriving from interest is part of the plaintiff’s taxable income . The respondent therefore rightfully included the income deriving from interest when assessing the tax return. Rationally speaking, EURL Petit Château de Roquetaillade – Aveyron should have been declared bankrupt a long time ago, but like today’s macroeconomics it is being kept alive by artificial means. Or, to put it differently, it does not want the umbilical cord cut so that it can learn to stand on its own two feet. To give you an impression, enclosure II contains information on the real and virtual interest-derived income of EURL Petit Chateau de Roquetaillade – Aveyron in 2005. It is quite reasonable to assume that EURL Petit Chateau de Roquetaillade – Aveyron will not be able to repay the loan or the interest. Bankruptcy would seem the most logical consequence. The only reason why it still exists, apart from receiving the guests of EURL Petit Château de Roquetaillade – Aveyron, is to extricate itself from the bureaucratic, fascist web we have woven. As soon as more recent accounting information is available, I will send it to the court and the Tax and Customs Administration. I am, of course, willing to pay tax on the interest actually received, but, to reiterate, this is not the essence of the case or this appeal. The question/essence is: what type of business/businessman should De Hutte Holding BV, Peter Hoopman and EURL Petit Château de Roquetaillade – Aveyron be within the preconditions set by the government, the constitutional state and the case law extant to date? It was argued during the case on behalf of the plaintiff that although creditor and debtor are equals, they are wrongly on an unequal footing in that the debtor has to pay interest and the creditor receives it. According to the plaintiff, this inequality can be redressed by no longer charging or having to charge interest on monetary loans. The plaintiff argued that this is only possible if society moves away from accepting the assumption that money has an intrinsic value. The court is obliged to legally qualify this argument presented by the plaintiff. According to the court, this argument invokes the principle of equality. The plaintiff as creditor wants to be treated in the same way as a debtor. The principle of equality is only violated if equal cases are treated differently. In the court’s opinion, these are not equal cases, because – in our current economic system – the plaintiff’s capacity as creditor differs fundamentally from that of debtor, both factually and legally. The appeal to the principle of equality therefore miscarries. Today’s ‘politico-economic’ conditions are forcing me, regardless of whether I assume the mantle of De Hutte Holding BV or that of EURL Petit Château de Roquetaillade – Aveyron, to take out more than I have put in. What does this mean, what does it imply, what kind of communication/society do you create based on such a logic/mechanism? And this, in fact, can be considered the basic building block of today’s politico-economic society! Is this the integration we keep talking about, the norms and values, the ethics of our thinking and our actions? I think (or rather: I hope) that the government is not aware of it but is actually asking me to be a predator and a thief. These are the foundations on which we are trying to build the cathedral that is our constitutional state and democracy. A cathedral of society that seeks to be a just synthesis of freedom, equality and solidarity, building on the uniqueness of every individual. I believe this is impossible, unjust, undemocratic and uneconomic. I cannot and will not be a legalised predator or thief any longer, living at the expense of others, of democracy and the environment. And that is the main issue of this appeal.
The plaintiff would like to thank the court that it has not ordered the payment of the costs of the proceedings. I would also like to pay the Arnhem District Court and the Tax and Customs Administration in the person of Mr X.X. Xxxxxxxx a compliment for the constructive attitude I experienced during the court session of 13 March 2008. I was pleasantly surprised by this; this may be pure profit in the true sense of the word.
1.6 Decision The court dismissed the claim on 17 April last. This ruling prompted the plaintiff to lodge an appeal.
2. The political, legal and ‘economic’ dilemma If the court really considers this appeal carefully, it will be caught on the horns of a dilemma, having to choose between the chaos that could erupt if this appeal is upheld and allowing the current unfair underlying chaos to spread insidiously. Neither appears to be a good option in my mind; I hope the court finds the courage and the creativity to strike a happy medium. I am aware, of course, that this is the responsibility of every citizen living in the Netherlands and all Dutch people residing abroad. At this point, I would like to touch upon a comment made by the judge during the session of 13 March last that has since preyed on my mind. He indicated that perhaps I should write an opinion piece to influence public opinion. At the risk of my misinterpreting this: does this mean that public opinion ‘objectifies reality’? Does this mean, andcorrect me if I am wrong, that the court itself is not capable of objectifying reality or at least attempting to do so? I hope that the court has a sense of humour, as this might explain why populism or the issues of the day are so effective. Perhaps I should hire an advertising agency and a spin doctor? To a truly open and free market, of, for and by the people Unfortunately, this appeal does not offer the scope to elaborate on this. I would like to point out, however, that it is important, even essential, to reinforce the self-reliance and autonomy of the individual as part of the greater whole and to give them meaning and space. This will only be possible if shared priorities are again made clear, visible, contextualised and put into practice. This will then automatically serve as a safe breeding ground for the development of the individual in perfect relationship to the world as a whole. This is something the plaintiff tried to explicate by writing about the distinction between a politico-economic model based on indirect communication and a politico-economic model based on direct communication.
Yours faithfully,
De Hutte Holding BV |
| Back to index page | Back to "Consultation with the government' |