The thread where I ask Stan M./Nath to do my work for me. Hulp! Ik snap het niet!

OK, they're sleeping. Slaap lekker!

- extreme legalese (only lawyers and notaries use language like this)
- weird ancient passive tense
- it's about VAT and taxes and how you can't argue with their decision unless you can prove they're wrong
- tegenwerpen aan = object to, argue with, protest against
- isn't stuff like this available online to lawyers/legal departments officially instead of having it translated every time? (no offence)

Anyway, let's see what we can do. Apologies if it still won't be very clear... I'm splitting it up into smaller parts (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know how this should sound in American/English legalese) :

Kracht3ns artikel 18, §2 W.R3g.
According to article 18, §2 W.R3g.
_
_
kan aan de administrati3 van de b3lasting over de toegevoegd3 waard3, registrati3 en dom3inen niet worden tegengeworpen,
one can't argue with the department of value added tax, registration and domains (territories?) (next word isn't there but would clarify somewhat)
about
_
_
de juridisch3 kwalificatie door de partijen gegeven aan een akte alsook aan afzonderlijk3 akten die een zelfde verrichting tot stand brengen,
the legal qualification by the parties of an act (=a legal document) or other acts that create a similar transaction
_
_
wann33r de administratie door vermoe3ens of door andere bewijsmidd3len vaststelt dat die kwalificatie tot doel heeft de rechten te ontwijken,
when the department finds (by presumptions or other proof) that that qualification is meant to evade the law
_
_
tenzij de belastingplichtig3 bewijst dat die kwalificati3 aan rechtmatige financiële of economisch3 behoeften beantwoordt.
unless the tax payer proves that this qualification answers to justifiable financial or economic needs.

Thanks! I translate legalese all the time, so most of it is clear to me. It's that tegenwerpen aan that got me. If it were just tegenwerpen it would make more sense to me because I know tegenwerpen as refute or renounce. But if it basically means "argue with", then it's clearer.