Common Artikel 23 Rejections and How to Avoid Them

We speak with international founders almost every week who are surprised that their Artikel 23 application got rejected. On paper, everything looked fine. The company was registered, imports were planned, and cash-flow depended on VAT deferment. Still, the Dutch tax authority said no.

This happens more often than people think.

The main issue is that Artikel 23 is not a checkbox process. It is not granted just because a company imports goods into the Netherlands. The tax authority reviews the full picture — company structure, business activity, compliance readiness, and how serious the setup looks in practice. Small gaps or unclear points can easily lead to rejection, even if the intention is correct.

We also see many founders relying on partial information found online. Some assume Artikel 23 works automatically after VAT registration. Others apply too early, or with a setup that does not yet qualify. From the outside, it feels confusing. From the tax authority’s side, they are simply managing risk.

This article explains the most common Artikel 23 rejection reasons we see in real cases, and more importantly, how these issues can be avoided when planned properly. We’ll keep this practical and direct, just like we explain it during client calls.

If you’re planning to import into the Netherlands or already in the process, this clarity can save you time, money, and frustration.

Not Having a Valid Dutch VAT Number at the Right Stage

This is one of the most common reasons Artikel 23 applications get rejected, and honestly, it surprises many founders.

We often see companies applying for Artikel 23 before their Dutch VAT number is fully active or properly assessed by the tax authority. From the founder’s side, it feels logical to apply early so imports are not delayed. But from the Dutch tax office’s view, this is simply too soon.

Artikel 23 is not issued in isolation. It sits on top of your VAT registration. If the VAT number is still provisional, recently issued, or missing clarity around taxable activities, the application almost always fails. The tax authority wants to see that the VAT setup is stable and makes sense for imports.

Another issue we see is mismatch in timing. For example, the company is registered, but there is no clear import activity yet. Or the VAT number exists, but customs details, logistics partners, or EU supply flow are still unclear. In such cases, the tax office considers the request premature.

Business Activity Does Not Match Artikel 23 Requirements

This is another rejection reason that founders rarely expect, but the Dutch tax authority looks at it very closely.

Artikel 23 is designed for active import and trading businesses. If your company activity does not clearly support that, the application usually gets rejected. We see this happen when the registered business purpose sounds generic, unclear, or disconnected from actual imports.

For example, a company registers as “IT consulting” or “holding activities,” but applies for Artikel 23 to import physical goods. On paper, this creates a mismatch. The tax authority then questions why VAT deferment is needed at all. Even if imports are planned, the activity must already align with that model.

Another common issue is dropshipping or indirect trade models. If goods are not clearly imported into the Netherlands under your company’s responsibility, Artikel 23 may not apply. Many founders assume that any EU trade qualifies. In reality, the tax office wants to see direct involvement in the import process.

At FirmNL, we always review the actual flow of goods before recommending Artikel 23.

• Who imports?
• Who owns the goods at customs?
• Where are they stored?
• Who invoices the customer?

If these answers are not consistent, rejection becomes likely.

This is exactly why we often adjust business descriptions or restructure activities before applying. Once the activity matches the Artikel 23 framework, approvals become much smoother.

Incomplete or Incorrect Import & Logistics Information

This is a rejection reason that feels small, but it causes big problems.

When you apply for Artikel 23, the Dutch tax authority expects a clear and realistic import setup. If logistics information is missing, vague, or inconsistent, the application often stops right there. We see this mistake very often with first-time importers.

Typical issues include not naming a freight forwarder, unclear Incoterms, or not explaining how goods will enter the Netherlands. Some applications simply state “goods will be imported,” without explaining from where, under whose responsibility, and through which process. For the tax office, this creates uncertainty.

Another common problem is mismatch between customs and VAT data. For example, the VAT registration says one thing, while the import explanation suggests something else. Even small contradictions raise red flags. The tax authority wants confidence that VAT deferment will be applied correctly at customs, not misused.

Also Checkout: How to Apply for an Artikel 23 License in the Netherlands

Poor Compliance History or Weak Company Setup Structure

This is a sensitive one, and many founders don’t realize it affects Artikel 23 at all.

The Dutch tax authority does not look at Artikel 23 as a standalone request. They also assess how reliable and compliant the company looks overall. If the setup feels weak or rushed, rejection chances go up quickly.

We see issues like missing filings, delayed VAT responses, unclear UBO information, or even a BV that exists only on paper. Sometimes the company was formed correctly, but there is no real operational signal yet — no contracts, no suppliers, no logistics planning. From the authority’s side, that creates doubt.

Another factor is background and structure. If directors are linked to multiple entities with past compliance problems, or if the ownership structure is unclear, extra scrutiny happens. This does not mean rejection is guaranteed, but it increases risk.

Applying Without a Fiscal Representative When Required

This is a mistake we see mostly with non-EU companies, and it leads to direct rejection in many cases.

Not every business is allowed to apply for Artikel 23 on its own. If your company is established outside the EU, the Dutch tax authority often requires a fiscal representative to take responsibility for VAT compliance. When this requirement is ignored or misunderstood, the application does not move forward.

Many founders assume that having a Dutch BV or a VAT number is enough. In reality, the tax authority looks at where control and liability sit. If the structure still involves non-EU risk, a fiscal representative becomes mandatory.

We also see cases where companies appoint a fiscal representative too late, or name one without proper agreements in place. From the tax authority’s view, this is incomplete compliance. As a result, Artikel 23 gets rejected without much discussion.

We handle this very carefully. We assess early whether fiscal representation is required and structure the application accordingly. This avoids last-minute surprises and unnecessary rejections.

This is one of those areas where local knowledge matters. Without understanding how the Dutch tax authority applies these rules in practice, many companies get stuck here.

Documentation Errors That Trigger Immediate Rejection

This is where many Artikel 23 applications fail, even when everything else looks correct.

The Dutch tax authority is very strict with consistency and accuracy in documents. Small errors can lead to an instant rejection, without any follow-up questions. We see this more often than people expect.

Common problems include mismatched company names, incorrect Chamber of Commerce details, outdated VAT forms, or documents that do not reflect the latest company structure. Sometimes the information is correct, but not aligned across all forms. For example, the business activity described in the VAT registration does not match what is stated in the Artikel 23 request.

Another issue is missing supporting documents. Founders often assume some details are “obvious” and do not need explanation. The tax authority does not assume. If something is unclear or missing, they usually reject it instead of asking for clarification.

Misunderstanding Artikel 23 as Automatic VAT Deferment

This misunderstanding causes more Artikel 23 rejections than most founders realize.

Many companies believe that once they have a Dutch VAT number, Artikel 23 automatically applies to their imports. That is not how it works. Artikel 23 is a separate approval, and the tax authority treats it as a risk-based decision, not a standard right.

We often see applications that assume VAT deferment will start from day one. In reality, the tax office wants proof that the company understands its VAT obligations and can manage deferred payments correctly. If the application feels casual or unstructured, rejection is very likely.

Another issue is expectation mismatch. Some founders apply for Artikel 23 just to avoid paying VAT at customs, without fully setting up their reporting processes. From the authority’s perspective, this is risky. Deferred VAT only works when reporting, accounting, and compliance are handled properly.
Read More: Netherlands Company Registration Process & Requirements

How FirmNL Pre-Checks and De-Risks Article 23 Applications

This is where we see the biggest difference between rejected and approved Artikel 23 applications.

We don’t treat Artikel 23 as a form-filling task. We treat it as a risk review exercise, the same way the Dutch tax authority does. Before anything is submitted, we step back and look at the full setup.

We review timing. Is the VAT number mature enough? Is the business activity clearly linked to imports? Are logistics and customs responsibilities defined properly? If something is too early or unclear, we say it openly and fix it first.

Second, we check structure and consistency. Company purpose, VAT registration, import explanation, and documentation must all tell the same story. If one part says consulting and another says trading, we know that application will fail. So we align it before submission.

Third, we assess compliance readiness. This includes how VAT reporting will be handled, whether fiscal representation is required, and whether the company looks capable of managing deferred VAT correctly. The tax authority looks for responsibility, not just intention.

This pre-check approach saves founders from trial-and-error applications. Instead of learning through rejection, they apply once, properly, and move forward without delays.

That’s how we help international companies use Artikel 23 the right way — not just to get approval, but to stay compliant after approval as well.