VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Persons liable for payment of VAT EU VAT case law

40 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2010 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 40 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-72/24 Keladis I and Keladis II

Judgment · 29 January 2026 · Greece

Statistical "lowest acceptable price" as basis for import VAT valuation

Threshold prices are usable, but only as a last resort under the fall-back method (Article 31(1) CCC, Article 74(3) UCC), not under the deductive method, and only if the operator was given the opportunity to justify the lower declared prices. Otherwise the practice becomes a prohibited system of minimum values. The underlying imports must be at or about the same time, the 90 day period applying by analogy with reasonable flexibility. Tariff grouping requested by the declarant continues to apply on revaluation. Member States may make the deemed owner liable for import VAT if national law says so explicitly and unequivocally. Relevant to importers of low-value consumer goods, particularly textiles and clothing, and to advisers handling undervaluation audits.

C-796/23 Česká síť (Partners in a ‘company’)

Judgment · 11 December 2025 · Czechia

Who is the taxable person where partners in a partnership without legal personality supply services

Such national legislation is precluded. The taxable person, and so the person liable under Article 193, is whoever independently carries out the activity. Acting in its own name, on its own behalf and responsibility, and bearing the economic risk. Close cooperation does not remove independence. Departing from the civil law representation rules is irrelevant, save that the partnership itself cannot then be treated as the supplier. It remains for the national court to verify the facts, including whether the Article 11 grouping rules and abuse could apply. Relevant wherever domestic law channels VAT liability to a nominated partner or lead member of an unincorporated association or joint venture.

C-121/24 Vaniz

Judgment · 11 December 2025 · Bulgaria

Joint and several liability after the principal debtor has been struck off

Article 205 does not preclude it. Joint and several liability means each debtor owes the whole amount, so the disappearance of one co-debtor does not release the others, and allowing otherwise would let bad-faith debtors organise their own liquidation to defeat recovery. The qualification is that it must be established that the third party, when exercising its own right of deduction, knew or should have known that the VAT would not be paid, and the national limitation period must have been respected. Recipients cannot treat the striking off of a defaulting supplier as closing the file. Relevant to buyers in high-risk sectors such as transport and vehicle trading.

C-101/24 Xyrality

Judgment · 9 October 2025 · Germany

App store as deemed supplier of in-app purchases

Article 28 is not excluded solely because order confirmations, received only after the purchase is concluded, identify the developer and state its national VAT rate. What matters is the powers the intermediary enjoys in the supply. Article 9a of the Implementing Regulation, though inapplicable before 01-01-2015, clarifies the same concept. The fictitious supply to the platform is located under Article 44. Article 203 does not apply where the customers are non-taxable persons, so there is no deduction risk. Relevant to app developers, games studios, content providers and marketplace operators reviewing pre-2015 positions and any open assessments.

C-794/23 Finanzamt Österreich (VAT invoiced in error to final consumers II)

Judgment · 1 August 2025 · Austria

Correcting VAT overcharged on simplified invoices to a mixed customer base

The risk of revenue loss is assessed invoice by invoice. No Article 203 liability for the excess VAT invoiced to a non-taxable person, even if similar supplies were made to taxable persons. But the exempting concept covers only non-taxable persons. A taxable recipient triggers the risk even if the supply was used privately or for non-deductible purposes. Estimating the proportion of invoices issued to taxable persons is permissible if all relevant circumstances are weighed and neutrality, proportionality and the rights of the defence are respected, the estimate being rebuttable. Relevant to any business in mass market B2C sectors (leisure, hospitality, retail, transport) that has applied the wrong rate and issued simplified receipts to unidentified customers.

C-276/24 KONREO

Judgment · 10 July 2025 · Czechia

Concurrent denial of deduction and joint and several liability for the supplier's VAT

Article 205, read with proportionality, does not preclude the concurrent application of the two measures. Denial of deduction and joint and several liability pursue distinct, complementary objectives (combating evasion, efficient collection) and may be applied independently, without the authorities having to choose. Liability does not depend on whether the recipient paid or could deduct the VAT invoiced to it, nor on the prospects of a civil recourse claim against an insolvent supplier. The recipient must, however, retain the opportunity to show it took all reasonable precautions. Recipients in fraud chains, notably in fuel and other high risk commodity trading, face cumulative exposure.

C-278/24 Genzyński

Judgment · 30 April 2025 · Poland

Joint and several liability of company directors for VAT arrears

They do not preclude such a system, provided liability is confined to arrears arising during the director's term and to amounts unrecovered from the company, and provided the director can genuinely rebut the presumption by showing he exercised all due diligence in managing the company's affairs. The escape route must not be merely theoretical. But the mere fact that the exchequer was the company's sole creditor when permanent insolvency arose is not by itself a defence. Confirms Member States may attach personal VAT liability to directors on a rebuttable presumption of knowledge and influence, without proof of fraud or bad faith, following Herdijk.

C-277/24 Adjak

Judgment · 27 February 2025 · Poland

Directors' joint and several liability and the rights of the defence

Exclusion of the potentially liable director from the company's assessment proceedings is permissible. At that stage liability is only a possibility, and participation could compromise confidentiality and delay collection. But the exclusion is lawful only if, in the subsequent joint and several liability proceedings, the director can effectively challenge the findings of fact and legal classifications made in the assessment proceedings and can access the tax authority's file, subject to the rights of others. Member States may keep assessment and derivative liability in separate tracks, but the second track must be a genuine opportunity to reopen the quantum and characterisation of the debt, not merely to test the statutory conditions of liability.

C-331/23 Dranken Van Eetvelde

Judgment · 12 December 2024 · Belgium

Joint and several liability for another trader's VAT fraud

Article 205 permits liability for the entire VAT debt, with no apportionment by degree of participation, provided the taxable person can show it took all reasonably required measures to ensure its transactions were not part of the fraud. The underlying presumption must be rebuttable. No account need be taken of the actual debtor's deduction right, since in fraud cases that right is refused anyway. Article 50 does not apply because conduct in different tax years is not the same facts, whatever national law says about a continuing offence. Confirms that Member States may collect the full VAT loss from any knowing or negligent participant in a chain fraud, without civil style apportionment. Relevant to wholesale distribution and any sector exposed to missing trader arrangements.

C-533/22 Adient

Judgment · 13 June 2024 · Romania

Fixed establishment through a group toll manufacturer

No fixed establishment arises solely from group membership or from a services contract between the two companies. For place of supply purposes the focus is on resources for receiving services, so a structure intervening in downstream supplies of the manufactured goods is irrelevant, as is where those goods are sold. There is no fixed establishment where the recipient's human and technical resources are not distinct from those used by the supplier, or where they perform only preparatory or auxiliary activities. Confirms and tightens Berlin Chemie and Cabot Plastics for toll manufacturing and contract processing structures, especially intra-group ones. Relevant to automotive and manufacturing groups and their advisers.

C-37/23 Giocevi

Order · 18 March 2024 · Italy

Disaster relief reduction of VAT payable and fiscal neutrality

By reasoned order under Article 99, the Court held those provisions preclude such legislation. Member States must collect all VAT due. A reduction lets affected traders keep VAT charged to final consumers while others pay in full, breaching neutrality. That the reduction was smaller than the 90% measure in Nuova Invincibile, and that the authorities retained powers of verification, made no difference. The mechanism was the same. Confirms that natural disaster and emergency relief packages may defer VAT payment but cannot forgive part of the net VAT due, whatever the percentage and whatever audit safeguards accompany it.

C-442/22 Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie (Fraud by an employee)

Judgment · 30 January 2024 · Poland

Who enters the VAT on a fake invoice issued by an employee

The employee is the person who enters the VAT under Article 203, and so is liable, unless the employer failed to exercise the due diligence reasonably required to monitor that employee's conduct. Article 203 applies irrespective of fault where there is a risk of loss of tax revenue, but the good faith apparent issuer is not liable where the authority knows who actually issued the invoice. Whether diligence was exercised is for the authority or national court to assess overall. Businesses cannot assume that identity appropriation by their own staff shifts liability away automatically.

C-247/21 Luxury Trust Automobil

Judgment · 8 December 2022 · Austria

Invoice wording as a condition of the triangulation simplification

No valid designation: in a triangular transaction the words "Reverse charge" under Article 226(11a) cannot be replaced by another form of wording, however informative. Nor can the omission be cured retrospectively. Adding the reference later is the first issue of the required invoice and has no retroactive effect, because designation of the customer as liable is a substantive condition of Article 42(a), not a formality. The Article 219a question therefore did not need answering. In any event these requirements cannot vary between Member States. Anyone using the Article 141 simplification must put "Reverse charge" on the invoice at the outset.

C-378/21 Finanzamt Österreich (VAT invoiced incorrectly to final consumers)

Judgment · 8 December 2022 · Austria

VAT wrongly invoiced to final consumers at too high a rate

Article 203 does not apply. It targets the risk of loss of revenue created by the recipient's right of deduction, and it bites only on the amount exceeding the VAT properly due under Article 193. Where the recipients are exclusively final consumers with no deduction right, there is no such risk and the supplier is not liable under Article 203 for the incorrectly invoiced part. The remaining questions did not need answering. Relevant to B2C businesses that have applied too high a rate, especially retail, leisure and hospitality operators issuing simplified till receipts where reissuing invoices to individual customers is impracticable.

C-1/21 Direktor na Direktsia Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika

Judgment · 13 October 2022 · Bulgaria

Joint and several liability of a company director for the company's VAT debts

Article 273 and proportionality do not preclude such liability where the person is a manager or member of an executive body, acted in bad faith in making hidden distributions or transferring assets free of charge or below market value, there is a causal link with the company's inability to pay VAT, liability is capped at the depletion of assets, and it arises only subsidiarily after recovery from the company fails. Default interest may be included, but only interest attributable to the bad faith acts. Article 205 does not apply. The PFI Convention does not either. Relevant to advisers on directors' personal exposure for corporate VAT arrears in Bulgaria and other Member States with similar derivative liability rules outside Article 205.

C-235/21 Raiffeisen Leasing

Judgment · 29 September 2022 · Slovenia

When a contract counts as an invoice

A sale-and-lease back agreement not followed by any invoice may itself constitute an invoice under Article 203 where it indicates the VAT and contains the information from the content-of-invoices provisions necessary for the tax authority to establish that the substantive conditions for deduction are met. Not every Article 226 detail is required. The parties' intention that the document serve as an invoice, and any expectation of deduction, is irrelevant. The national court must verify, including whether the rate could be deduced. Any document stating a VAT amount can trigger Article 203 liability, so a contract, addendum or agreement in leasing, real estate or finance carries that liability wherever it states VAT.

C-146/21 DGRFP Bucureşti

Judgment · 30 June 2022 · Romania

VAT registration as a condition for applying the domestic reverse charge

The Directive and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude such a condition. A Member State authorised to derogate from Article 193 may set conditions for applying the reverse charge, including prior VAT registration, provided fiscal neutrality is respected. Article 199(2) supports this and the exception must be read strictly. The case law treating registration as a mere formality applies to the right of deduction. Refusing the reverse charge does not deprive the customer of deduction, and the condition is objective and proportionate given control difficulties in the timber market. Confirms that the formalities case law on deduction does not transfer automatically to reverse charge eligibility.

C-714/20 U.I. (Indirect customs representative)

Judgment · 12 May 2022 · Italy

Liability of the indirect customs representative for import VAT

Article 77(3) of the Customs Code covers customs debt only. Import VAT is not an import duty, so that provision alone makes the indirect representative liable for customs duties, not import VAT. Under Article 201 Member States retain a free choice and may designate the representative as jointly and severally liable, but only through national provisions that do so explicitly and unequivocally, consistently with legal certainty. Whether the Italian provisions do so is for the national court. Customs agents, freight forwarders and clearance brokers acting as indirect representatives cannot be assessed for import VAT by simple analogy with the customs debt.

C-281/20 Ferimet

Judgment · 11 November 2021 · Spain

Deduction where the invoice names a fictitious supplier under the reverse charge

Naming the supplier is a formal condition, but the supplier's status as a taxable person is a material one. Deduction must be refused where, on the facts and the evidence the taxable person produces, the information needed to verify that the true supplier was a taxable person is lacking, or where it is established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person committed VAT fraud or knew or should have known the transaction was connected with such fraud. Neither a risk of revenue loss nor a tax advantage need be shown. Relevant to scrap, metals and waste traders and anyone self-billing under domestic reverse charges.

C-4/20 ALTI

Judgment · 20 May 2021 · Bulgaria

Joint and several liability for unpaid VAT and default interest

Article 205 does not preclude such legislation. Although the wording of Article 205 refers only to payment of VAT, Member States may impose all elements relating to that tax, including default interest, provided this is justified by the objective of efficient collection and respects legal certainty and proportionality. The qualification is that it must be proved that, when exercising its deduction right, the person knew or should have known the supplier would not pay. Presumptions are permitted only if genuinely rebuttable. A recipient drawn into a joint and several liability regime is exposed to default interest accruing from the supplier's own default, and not merely to the principal tax, where knowledge is established. Relevant to those advising on chain transactions and on associated-party structures under scrutiny in Bulgaria and other Member States with Article 205 liability rules.

C-48/20 P (Fuel cards)

Judgment · 18 March 2021 · Poland

Adjusting VAT wrongly shown on fuel card invoices

They do preclude such legislation. Where the issuer acted in good faith, here relying on a consistent practice of the Polish authorities treating fuel card arrangements as chain supplies rather than exempt financing, Member States must provide a means of adjustment. Denying it while the underlying supplies by the service stations are themselves taxed imposes a tax burden contrary to neutrality. Member States otherwise remain free to set the conditions for adjustment. Relevant to fuel card and similar intermediation structures reassessed after Vega International, and more broadly to anyone facing an Article 203 assessment on invoices issued in reliance on published rulings or settled administrative practice.

C-312/19 Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija (Joint activity agreement)

Judgment · 16 September 2020 · Lithuania

Which partner is the taxable person under a joint activity agreement

The individual who participates alone and in his own name in dealings with third parties, notwithstanding a contractual power to act in the name of all partners, carries out the economic activity independently. He is the taxable person under Article 9(1) and solely liable under Article 193, whether acting on his own behalf or on behalf of another as a commission agent under Articles 14(2)(c) and 28. The remaining questions on allocation between partners and the Article 287 threshold did not require an answer. Relevant to advisers on unincorporated joint ventures, property development consortia and silent partnership structures, particularly in Member States where partnerships lack legal personality.

C-712/17 EN.SA.

Judgment · 8 May 2019 · Italy

Circular fictitious invoicing, liability under Article 203 and proportionality of penalties

Both denial of deduction and liability of the invoice issuer are inherent in the Directive and may apply cumulatively to the same trader, even where the issuer acted in bad faith. However, Member States must allow the Article 203 liability to be adjusted where the issuer has, in sufficient time, wholly eliminated the risk of loss of tax revenue. A fine equal to the full amount deducted, imposed without regard to the output VAT paid and the absence of any Treasury loss, breaches proportionality and neutrality. Relevant to anyone facing assessments on carousel-style or round-tripping invoicing where the flows cancel out, including intra-group trading structures in energy and commodities.

C-434/17 Human Operator

Judgment · 13 February 2019 · Hungary

Retroactive application of a derogation authorising reverse charge

A Member State may not apply the derogating measure before the Council decision has been notified to it. Under Article 297(2) TFEU the decision took effect on notification, and legal certainty precludes retroactivity absent an express provision. The Member State's stated wish, and the Commission's awareness that it had already begun applying the measure, are irrelevant. For the earlier period the general rule in Article 193 applies, is unconditional and sufficiently precise, and can be relied on directly. The suppliers, not the recipients, were liable. Relevant to businesses in Member States that jump the gun on Article 395 derogations, particularly labour supply, staffing and construction sectors.

C-154/16 Latvijas Dzelzceļš

Judgment · 18 May 2017 · Latvia

Import VAT on goods destroyed under external transit

Article 203(1) does not apply where destruction or irretrievable loss is proven to a satisfactory standard. Such goods cannot enter the EU economic network. Article 204(1)(a) applies instead, so a customs debt arises in principle for the part not produced intact, unless the national court finds force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances under Article 206(1). Import VAT, however, is not due on the destroyed or irretrievably lost part, because those goods cannot be integrated into the EU economy and so are not imported. The principal remains liable. Customs need not pursue the carrier. Confirms a clean split between customs duty and import VAT on transit shortfalls.

C-564/15 Farkas

Judgment · 26 April 2017 · Hungary

Reverse charge applied to the wrong transaction, deduction and penalty

Article 199(1)(g) applies only to immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale. Deduction of VAT that was not due may be refused even though the seller paid it to the Treasury. The purchaser must seek reimbursement from the seller. But where that is impossible or excessively difficult, notably on the seller's insolvency, he must be able to claim directly from the tax authority. A 50% penalty for a purely administrative error causing no revenue loss appears disproportionate, subject to the national court's assessment. Confirms that domestic reverse charges cannot be extended beyond the categories listed in Article 199 without an Article 395 derogation, which is where national insolvency and auction regimes are exposed.

C-226/14 Eurogate Distribution and DHL Hub Leipzig

Judgment · 2 June 2016 · Germany

Import VAT where a customs debt arises from a procedural breach on re-exported goods

No import VAT is due. The goods remained under customs warehousing or external transit until re-exportation and left the arrangement only because of it, so there was no importation under Article 2. That holds even though an Article 204 customs debt was incurred, the breach here being discovered after re-export, with no risk of entry into the EU economic network. Nobody is liable for the VAT, so the question of the debtor does not arise. Article 236 does not apply to VAT repayments.

C-82/14 Nuova Invincibile

Order · 15 July 2015 · Italy

An earthquake relief measure reducing VAT by 90 per cent is contrary to the directive

The Court holds that those provisions do preclude such a measure, in so far as it does not meet the requirements of fiscal neutrality and does not ensure the full collection of the VAT due within Italian territory. A Member State must take all legislative and administrative measures needed to collect the tax in full, and a general waiver of that kind is incompatible with that obligation. An application of the principle established in Commission v Italy on the 2002 tax amnesty.

C-111/14 GST - Sarviz Germania

Judgment · 23 April 2015 · Bulgaria

Reverse charge applied in error where the supplier had a fixed establishment

Where the services are supplied from a fixed establishment in the Member State of taxation, the supplier alone is liable. Article 194 does not permit the authorities to treat the recipient as liable, even where the recipient has already paid on a mistaken assumption. Refusing the supplier a refund breaches fiscal neutrality where the recipient's deduction has been definitively denied and invoices cannot be adjusted. The outcome would differ if national law allowed the supplier to adjust its invoices and recover the VAT from the recipient. Relevant wherever a fixed establishment is asserted retrospectively on audit and the customer has meanwhile self-accounted.

C-499/13 Macikowski

Judgment · 26 March 2015 · Poland

Obligations of the court enforcement officer as paying agent on compulsory sales

None of these provisions precludes the Polish mechanism. The officer is a mere intermediary collecting tax on the taxable person's behalf, not a person liable, jointly liable or a tax representative under Article 204. The scheme falls within Article 273. Personal liability with all his assets is proportionate only if the officer actually has all the legal means to discharge the obligation in time, which the national court must verify. The supplier retains its right to deduct and may claim repayment of any overpayment. Confirms that Member States may use third party collection agents under Article 273 without engaging the liability rules in Articles 193 to 205. Relevant to enforcement officers, insolvency practitioners and auctioneers in Member States operating similar withholding mechanisms, and to advisers on compulsory sales of land.

C-7/13 Skandia America (USA), filial Sverige

Judgment · 17 September 2014 · Sweden

Services from a third country head office to a branch inside a VAT group

Such supplies are taxable. The branch itself is not an independent taxable person, but by joining a VAT group it ceases to be identifiable separately. The services are treated as supplied to the group, which is a taxable person distinct from the head office. Since the services fall within Article 56 and the supplier is established in a third country, the VAT group as purchaser is liable for the VAT under Article 196. Grouping a branch changes the VAT analysis of internal cost allocations from head office.

C-125/12 Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200

Judgment · 13 June 2013 · Spain

Reverse charge on property sold in insolvency proceedings

The Court held that every sale of immovable property by a judgment debtor comes within "compulsory sale procedure", whether made in the liquidation of the debtor's assets or in insolvency proceedings preceding liquidation, provided the sale is necessary either to settle creditors' claims or to enable the debtor to re-establish its economic or professional activities. The Spanish text ("liquidación") is narrower than most language versions and does not govern. A strict reading of the derogation must not deprive it of effect. On a purchase of real estate from an insolvent Spanish seller, and elsewhere on the same reasoning, reverse charge liability runs from the moment insolvency proceedings open and not only once liquidation begins.

C-642/11 Stroy trans

Judgment · 31 January 2013 · Bulgaria

Asymmetry between invoice issuer's liability and recipient's deduction

VAT entered on an invoice is payable by the issuer regardless of whether a taxable transaction exists, and no acknowledgement of a real transaction can be inferred from the mere absence of correction in a notice addressed to the issuer. Refusal of deduction to the recipient is not precluded by neutrality, proportionality or legitimate expectations. But where non-performance rests on fraud or irregularities of the issuer or upstream, it must be shown on objective factors that the recipient knew or should have known of the connection with fraud. Confirms that a supplier's unadjusted VAT assessment is only one evidential factor, not proof of supply, so recipients cannot rely on the tax treatment of their supplier to secure deduction. Relevant to fuel, commodity and other chain trading where authorities allege missing supplies from documentary gaps upstream.

C-643/11 LVK

Judgment · 31 January 2013 · Bulgaria

Asymmetric treatment of issuer and recipient of an invoice where no supply took place

VAT entered on an invoice is payable under Article 203 regardless of whether a taxable transaction exists, and no inference of acceptance arises from the authorities leaving the issuer's declaration unadjusted. Issuer and recipient are not in comparable situations. Deduction may therefore be refused for want of an actual transaction. But where the finding of no supply rests on fraud or irregularities by the issuer or upstream, the authorities must establish on objective factors that the recipient knew or should have known of the fraud, without demanding checks that are not his responsibility. Customers cannot defend a deduction simply by pointing to the supplier having declared and been assessed on the same VAT. Relevant to agricultural, commodity and other chain-supply trades facing missing-trader challenges.

C-395/11 BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau

Judgment · 13 December 2012 · Germany

Scope of the German construction reverse charge derogation

"Construction work" covers supplies of goods as well as supplies of services. The goods/services classification is irrelevant, since the VAT loss risk is the same. Germany could exercise the authorisation only in part, by subcategories of work and of recipient, provided it respects fiscal neutrality and the general principles of EU law, notably proportionality and legal certainty. The national court must check compliance, in particular whether taxable persons could know precisely who owed the tax, and remedy any harmful consequences. Confirms that domestic construction reverse charges built on Article 27 derogations are not confined to services, so contract-work arrangements involving materials and building on the recipient's land fall within scope.

C-500/10 Belvedere Costruzioni

Judgment · 29 March 2012 · Italy

Automatic conclusion of long-running tax appeals

The provisions do not preclude such a measure. The obligation to collect VAT effectively cannot override the reasonable time requirement in Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6(1) ECHR. Unlike the amnesty measures condemned in Commission v Italy, this was not a general and indiscriminate waiver of verification shortly after payment deadlines, but an exceptional rule closing the oldest cases (in practice over 14 years old) after two adverse judgments, so it did not breach fiscal neutrality. Confirms that Member States may legislate to close ancient tax litigation without infringing their VAT collection duties, provided the measure is exceptional, defined by objective age and procedural criteria, and not a substitute for audit.

C-499/10 Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij

Judgment · 21 December 2011 · Belgium

Joint and several liability of the tax warehouse-keeper

Article 21(3) does not authorise such unconditional liability. Joint and several liability is permissible in principle, but strict liability, with no possibility for the person concerned to escape by proving he had nothing to do with the acts of the person liable, breaches proportionality, even for an authorised tax warehouse-keeper under Directive 92/12. It remains legitimate to require that person to take every step reasonably expected to ensure he is not participating in evasion. Good faith and due diligence are decisive factors for the national court to assess. Confirms that national secondary liability provisions in warehousing regimes must include an exculpatory route based on good faith and reasonable diligence.

C-624/10 Commission v France

Judgment · 15 December 2011 · France

A French administrative tolerance displacing the reverse charge was unlawful

The Court finds the infringement established. The scheme breached the VAT Directive and in particular Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214. Where the reverse charge applies the person liable is the customer, and a non established supplier that is not liable for the tax must recover its input VAT through the refund procedure rather than through a domestic registration and set-off. France was ordered to pay the costs. A reminder that the person liable for the tax and the route to recovering input VAT are fixed by the directive and are not at the disposal of national administrative practice, however convenient the simplification.

C-421/10 Stoppelkamp

Judgment · 6 October 2011 · Germany

Meaning of a taxable person not established in the territory of the country

It is sufficient that the seat of the economic activity is established outside the country. Personal residence, domicile or normal place of residence are secondary connecting factors, relevant only where there is no information on the seat or a fixed establishment from which transactions are effected. That applies where the seat is known and genuine, not fictitious or a mere letter-box presence, in which case other factors may be examined. Confirms that customers applying the reverse charge need not investigate where their supplier personally lives once the supplier's business seat is demonstrably in another Member State.

C-248/09 Pakora Pluss

Judgment · 29 July 2010 · Latvia

Import VAT and the accession transitional regime for goods in transport

The accession regime is exhaustive for goods in transport on 01-05-2004 and requires three cumulative conditions: export procedure completed, release for free circulation, and proof of preferential origin or Community status. Article 448 steps cannot substitute for the export formalities. The Customs Code applied in the new Member States from 01-05-2004, but the duty-free accession regime cannot be invoked where those formalities were not completed. Import duties under Article 4(10) do not include import VAT. Import VAT is payable by the person designated or accepted as liable by the Member State of importation. Confirms that import VAT sits outside the customs concept of import duties even though duties enter the import VAT taxable amount, and that liability for import VAT is a matter of national designation rather than automatically attaching to the transit principal under customs rules.

Related topics

Proportionality · Obligations of taxable persons · Fiscal neutrality · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Right of deduction · Tax evasion and abuse · Import or export procedures · Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of VAT · Customs union · Customs Code