Administrative cooperation and combating tax fraud EU VAT case law

6 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2011 to 2021.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 4 of these cases
Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC Obligations of taxable persons and certain non-taxable persons · 3 of these cases
Article 7 of Directive 2006/112/EC Territorial scope · 2 of these cases
Article 1 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 2 of these cases
Article 250 of Directive 2006/112/EC Returns · 2 of these cases
Article 24 of Directive 2006/112/EC Supply of services · 2 of these cases
Article 33 of Directive 2006/112/EC Supply of goods with transport · 1 of these cases
Article 13 of Directive 2006/112/EC Taxable persons · 1 of these cases

The 6 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-186/20 HYDINA SK

Judgment · 30 September 2021 · Slovakia

Time limits for cross-border information exchange and suspension of a tax audit

Article 10, read with recital 25, does not lay down time limits whose breach can affect the lawfulness of a suspension of a tax audit under the requesting Member State's law. Articles 11 and 12 show the legislature expressly contemplated late replies, and the time limits govern only relations between the tax authorities, not their relations with taxable persons. The Regulation confers no specific right on taxable persons and does not regulate audit duration or suspension. Taxpayers under prolonged audit cannot use delays in cross-border information requests to attack the suspension of the audit or its overall length.

C-276/18 KrakVet Marek Batko

Judgment · 18 June 2020 · Hungary

Distance selling, when goods are transported "on behalf of the supplier"

Regulation 904/2010 provides only for exchange of information. It does not bind one authority to another's classification, so unilateral divergent treatment is permitted (with any overpaid VAT recoverable). Article 33 applies where the supplier's role is predominant in initiating and organising the essential stages of dispatch or transport, judged on economic reality rather than the contracts alone. That is for the national court. No abuse arises merely from the link with the carrier or the buyer's freedom to choose, where both companies genuinely trade independently. Relevant to e-commerce sellers and their advisers dealing with pre-2021 periods and to the reading of "indirect intervention" now in Article 33.

C-446/18 Agrobet CZ

Judgment · 14 May 2020 · Czechia

Withholding an undisputed portion of excess VAT during a tax inspection

Excess VAT is not an indivisible whole. An undisputed portion can in principle be identified and refunded early, and legislation preventing a taxable person from adducing evidence of one breaches the principle of good administration. But there is no refund obligation unless it can be established clearly, precisely and unequivocally that excess VAT (possibly less than the amount relating to the unexamined transactions) will remain whatever the inspection's outcome. That is for the national court to verify. Relevant to any business, particularly commodity traders in repayment positions, facing prolonged inspections aimed at a narrow set of supplies.

C-310/16 Dzivev and Others

Judgment · 17 January 2019 · Bulgaria

Unlawfully authorised telephone intercepts in VAT fraud prosecutions

The effectiveness principle does not oblige a national court to set aside such an exclusionary rule. Interception authorised by a court lacking jurisdiction is not "in accordance with the law" for Article 52(1) of the Charter and interferes unlawfully with Article 7 privacy rights, so the national rule reflects EU requirements rather than obstructing them. Neither the unclear drafting of the jurisdiction transfer provision nor the fact that the evidence is decisive for one defendant alters that conclusion. A limit on the Taricco and Kolev line.

C-419/14 WebMindLicenses

Judgment · 17 December 2015 · Hungary

Offshore licensing of website know-how and abuse of rights

Common ownership, the licensor's founder exercising influence over the know-how and its exploitation, use of subcontractors and the licensor's own motives are not decisive. Abuse requires proof of a wholly artificial arrangement, assessed by whether the licensee genuinely had premises, human and technical resources and acted in its own name, on its own behalf, at its own risk. VAT paid abroad does not bar adjustment. A cooperation request is required where useful or essential. Covert criminal evidence may be used only if lawfully obtained and used, proportionate, and disclosed with a hearing. Otherwise it must be disregarded. Confirms that rate arbitrage through an offshore licensee is not abusive per se. Relevant to digital, gaming and adult content operators using Madeira or similar structures, and to intellectual property licensing generally.

C-539/09 Commission v Germany

Judgment · 15 November 2011 · Germany

Powers of the Court of Auditors to audit VAT administrative cooperation

Germany infringed Article 248(1) to (3) EC. There is a direct link between collection of VAT in accordance with EU law and the VAT own resources made available to the EU budget, so cooperation mechanisms that affect effective collection concern EU revenue as to legality and sound financial management. No separate breach of Article 10 EC was found, and the Financial Regulation claims failed for want of proof. Any subsidiarity concern was answered by the cross-border dimension. Confirms that the Court of Auditors may enter Member States and examine how national tax administrations operate the VAT mutual assistance and information exchange machinery, not merely the arithmetic of the own resources return.