Accounting EU VAT case law

4 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2013 to 2014.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 242 of Directive 2006/112/EC General obligations · 3 of these cases
Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC Obligations of taxable persons and certain non-taxable persons · 2 of these cases
Article 226 of Directive 2006/112/EC Content of invoices · 2 of these cases
Article 178 of Directive 2006/112/EC Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · 2 of these cases
Article 184 of Directive 2006/112/EC Adjustment of deductions · 2 of these cases
Article 18 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC Deductions · 1 of these cases
Article 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC Obligations of persons liable for payment · 1 of these cases
Article 63 of Directive 2006/112/EC Supply of goods or services · 1 of these cases

The 4 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

C-590/13 Idexx Laboratories Italia

Judgment · 11 December 2014 · Italy

Formal versus substantive requirements for deduction under the reverse charge

Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 lay down formal requirements only: accounting, invoicing and return obligations. Non-compliance cannot cause loss of the right to deduct in circumstances such as these. The substantive requirements for intra-Community acquisitions flow from Article 17(2)(d). Acquisition by a taxable person liable for the VAT, goods used for taxable transactions. The position could differ if the formal breaches prevented conclusive proof that those substantive requirements were met. Here the authority had all the necessary information. Confirms and clarifies Ecotrade for businesses assessed on reverse charge acquisitions where registers or self-invoices were incomplete or missing entirely.

C-18/13 Maks Pen

Judgment · 13 February 2014 · Bulgaria

Deduction refused where the invoiced supplier did not make the supply

Deduction may be refused on those facts only subject to a twofold condition: the facts amount to fraudulent conduct, and the authorities establish by objective evidence that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction was connected with that fraud. The absence of resources, missing cost entries and false signatures are not in themselves enough. Courts that may raise national law points of their own motion must do the same for the EU fraud rule. Article 273 permits accounting requirements based on international standards, but a revenue recognition test for the time of supply is precluded. Useful where an assessment rests solely on the invoiced supplier's lack of substance or defective paperwork. Relevant to businesses buying subcontracted services and to advisers handling deduction denials in Bulgaria and other Member States using substance-based challenges.

C-78/12 Evita-K

Judgment · 18 July 2013 · Bulgaria

Proof of a supply of goods and formal ownership of livestock

The concept of a supply of goods, and the evidence that one actually took place, are independent of how ownership was acquired. The national court must assess all facts overall, and may look at prior and subsequent transactions and accompanying certificates. Authorities cannot require documents from the issuer showing ear tags. Article 242 does not import IAS 41. Article 226(6) does not require ear tags on invoices. Article 185(1) permits adjustment only where a right to deduct existed initially under Article 168(a). Useful to advisers dealing with livestock, agri-commodity and other fungible goods trades where tax authorities equate defective sector paperwork with a non-existent supply.

C-259/12 Rodopi-M 91

Judgment · 20 June 2013 · Bulgaria

Penalty for belated adjustment following cancellation of an invoice

Fiscal neutrality does not preclude such a fine, even where the taxable person has since remedied the omission and paid the tax with interest. The fine sanctions belated rectification of a deduction that had ceased to have a basis, not a transaction, so no double taxation arises. Proportionality is for the national court, having regard to the time taken to rectify, the seriousness of the irregularity and any evasion or circumvention. Late payment alone is not evasion. Confirms that Member States may penalise late adjustment of deductions at up to 100% of the tax, and that voluntary correction plus interest does not itself neutralise the penalty. Relevant to any business making credit note or cancellation adjustments in Member States with fixed percentage penalty regimes, and to those handling Bulgarian ZDDS assessments.