VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Refund of VAT EU VAT case law

48 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 1996 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 48 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-565/24 P-GmbH & Co. KG (Coffee trips)

Judgment · 10 September 2026 · Germany

Travel agents' margin scheme, day excursions financed by on-board sales, and a negative margin

Article 26 applies where a taxable person buys tourist services from third parties, in particular transport, in order to sell them in his own name to consumers in the form of excursions, and the fee received does not cover all the costs of those services, the remainder being financed by the revenue from goods sold to those consumers during the excursion. On the third question, the first sentence of Article 12(1) and the third sentence of Article 26(2) confer no right to a refund of input VAT where the margin on a single supply is negative. The judgment settles that the margin scheme is not displaced by the fact that the travel element is sold below cost and cross-subsidised by the sale of goods during the trip, and that a margin below zero marks the limit of the scheme rather than a claim against the exchequer. Relevant to day-excursion and promotional-selling operators, and to any margin computed on a single supply.

C-527/24 Harry et Associés

Judgment · 12 March 2026 · Italy

Corrupted electronic refund application and access to a court

The Court held that those provisions preclude such national law. Where an application was transmitted in accordance with Directive 2008/9 and duly received by both administrations, and no element suggests the required information was missing, a technical fault not attributable to the taxable person cannot mean no application was introduced. Good administration required the refund authority to flag the fault and request a clean file under Article 20(1). Inaction must be challengeable before a court. Res judicata cannot perpetuate that error in a dispute with a different object, subject to the referring court's verification. Relevant to any business claiming cross-border VAT refunds through the portal procedure, and to advisers handling stalled claims.

C-234/24 Brose Prievidza

Judgment · 23 October 2025 · Bulgaria

Refund of VAT on tooling that never leaves the supplier's Member State

Refusal is precluded where the equipment has not physically left the territory of the supplier's Member State, unless, on all the circumstances, that supply forms part of a single indivisible economic supply with, or is ancillary to, the intra-Community supplies of the goods produced using it. Without physical movement to the acquirer there is no intra-Community acquisition and hence no exempt supply. Supplies by two independent suppliers, separately contracted and invoiced, with no abuse alleged, are normally independent. Useful for manufacturers and contract manufacturing groups where tooling is bought, often via a central group purchasing entity, and left with the producer.

C-270/24 Granulines Invest

Order · 14 February 2025 · Hungary

A fictitious invoice label does not replace proof of the buyer knowledge of fraud

The Court answers no on both counts. To refuse deduction the authority must establish to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person actively participated in VAT fraud, or knew or should have known that the invoice issuer had committed such a fraud. A defective date on the invoice cannot found a refusal where the authority has all the information needed to check the substantive conditions, and correcting the invoice cannot be made a precondition. A recent restatement, in a reasoned order, of the two pillars of the deduction case law.

C-746/22 Slovenské Energetické Strojárne

Judgment · 16 May 2024 · Hungary

Late replies to requests for additional information in cross-border VAT refund claims

The Court held that such a national prohibition is precluded. The one-month period in Article 20(2) is not a limitation period, and the taxpayer must be able to regularise its claim by producing the information on appeal, whether administrative or judicial. Discontinuation of the procedure is, however, permissible, provided it is treated as a decision refusing the refund application under Article 23(1), with reasons notified, and is open to an appeal meeting Article 23(2). Businesses reclaiming VAT in other Member States under the electronic refund procedure can rely on this where a claim has been closed for a missed one-month deadline.

C-532/23 Lear Corporation Hungary

Order · 10 April 2024 · Hungary

Late payment interest on VAT refunds withheld under an unlawful national condition

By reasoned order under Article 99, the Court held that Article 183 does not preclude national law from treating a refund claim as including an interest claim. The authority may confine itself to the period stated in a timely interest claim. However, it may not treat a second claim as new and time-barred where it concerns interest on VAT retained through the same breach of EU law and the taxpayer only learned of the wider period from a later national decision following a Court ruling. Such a claim supplements the first. Relevant to taxpayers pursuing interest on VAT withheld under national conditions later found incompatible with EU law, particularly the long-running Hungarian "paid consideration" claims.

C-151/23 ZSE Elektrárne

Order · 5 October 2023 · Slovakia

Default interest on a late VAT refund and where the clock starts

Ruling by reasoned order, the Court confirmed that the taxable person is entitled to default interest where the credit is not repaid within a reasonable period. The detailed arrangements fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, framed by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, but national rules on the starting point for the calculation must not have the effect of depriving the taxable person of adequate compensation for the loss caused by the late repayment. The companion to Kovozber on the same Slovak rule, and expressed in more general terms.

C-397/21 HUMDA

Judgment · 13 October 2022 · Hungary

Direct claim against the tax authority for VAT invoiced in error by an insolvent supplier

Such national legislation is precluded where recovery from the supplier is impossible or excessively difficult due to liquidation and no fraud or abuse is attributable to either party, so there is no risk of revenue loss. Under Article 183, read with neutrality, interest is due if the refund is not made within a reasonable period after the request. The rules for calculating it are for national law, subject to equivalence and effectiveness and to giving adequate compensation. The VAT was not levied in breach of EU law, since Article 203 makes invoiced VAT payable. Confirms and extends Reemtsma beyond reverse charge and deduction disputes. Relevant to construction, events and other property related services where place of supply is misapplied, and to anyone holding claims against insolvent suppliers.

C-487/20 Philips Orăştie

Judgment · 10 February 2022 · Romania

Bank guarantees and the refund of disputed VAT, the principle of equivalence

Articles 179 and 183, together with the principle of equivalence, preclude national procedural rules governing VAT refund claims based on breach of the common VAT system that are less favourable than those applicable to comparable claims founded on domestic law concerning other taxes and duties. The Court left it to the referring court to identify genuinely comparable domestic actions and to verify that the VAT rules are in fact less favourable, and likewise to assess whether the financial burden lasts an unreasonable period. Effectiveness was not in issue. Confirms that Member States' procedural autonomy over excess VAT refunds is bounded by equivalence. Relevant to businesses in Romania and elsewhere disputing VAT assessments while running repayment positions, and to advisers structuring guarantees pending appeal.

C-80/20 Wilo Salmson France

Judgment · 21 October 2021 · Romania

Holding an invoice and the refund period for non-established taxable persons

No refund without an invoice, but a document is only not an invoice if its defects are so serious as to deprive the authorities of the information needed to support the claim. A claim cannot be refused merely because the VAT became chargeable in an earlier period if invoicing occurred in the claim period. However, unilateral cancellation and reissue by the supplier, after a refusal decision has become final, does not revive the right or shift it to a later period. Relevant to any business claiming cross-border refunds under the Eighth Directive procedure and to advisers handling refused claims.

C-396/20 CHEP Equipment Pooling

Judgment · 21 October 2021 · Hungary

Duty to invite correction of a cross-border VAT refund application

Article 20(1), read with fiscal neutrality and good administration, precludes the refund State, where it is certain (if need be from additional information supplied) that the input VAT actually paid per the attached invoice exceeds the amount claimed, from refunding only the lower claimed amount without first diligently inviting the taxable person to rectify the application. A corrected application is deemed lodged on the date of the original. No further information request is required where the information already held is genuinely sufficient. Refund authorities can no longer treat the figure in the claim as an absolute ceiling where the invoices plainly show more, provided the error is easily recognisable and the correct amount can be established with certainty. Relevant to any business making Directive 2008/9 claims, particularly groups with high invoice volumes, and to advisers handling refused or partially refused refunds.

C-294/20 GE Auto Service Leasing

Judgment · 9 September 2021 · Spain

Late production of evidence in a non-resident VAT refund claim

The Court held that refusal is not precluded where the claimant failed, despite formal requests, to produce the documents proving the substantive conditions before the authority decided. Member States may but need not admit later evidence. This is a matter of national procedural autonomy, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, which the national court must verify. Producing the documents spontaneously in later proceedings is not, in itself, an abuse of rights. Relevant to non-established claimants and their advisers under the refund regimes.

C-935/19 Grupa Warzywna

Judgment · 15 April 2021 · Poland

Proportionality of automatic VAT penalties

Article 273 and the principle of proportionality preclude such a penalty where it applies without distinction to an error of assessment by both parties as to the taxable nature of the transaction, absent any evidence of evasion or loss of revenue, and to cases where those circumstances are absent. Member States may still penalise wrongly claimed deductions. The defect is the automatic calculation, which leaves the authorities unable to adjust the amount to the individual circumstances. Neutrality was not examined. Relevant to anyone facing fixed-rate surcharges on disallowed input tax or overstated refunds, in Poland and in other Member States with automatic percentage penalties.

C-346/19 Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Judgment · 17 December 2020 · Germany

Invoice number in a cross-border VAT refund application

The invoice number means the sequential number uniquely identifying the invoice under Article 226(2) of Directive 2006/112. However, where the application contains another number allowing the invoice, and thus the supply, to be identified, neutrality and proportionality require the refund authority to treat the application as submitted under Article 15(1) and assess it. It may then request the sequential number under Article 20, unless it already holds the invoice or a copy, and may reject the claim if the one-month deadline is missed.

C-371/19 Commission v Germany (VAT refund – Invoices)

Judgment · 18 November 2020 · Germany

Germany could not reject refund claims without first asking for the missing invoices

The Court finds the infringement established. Rejecting such claims without first inviting the applicant to supply the copies, if necessary after 30 September, or to provide appropriate information, breaches the principle of fiscal neutrality and deprives the right to a refund of its practical effect. Germany infringed Articles 170 and 171 of the VAT Directive and Article 5 of Directive 2008/9. The action was dismissed as to the remainder. An important judgment for anyone running cross border refund claims.

C-242/19 CHEP Equipment Pooling

Judgment · 11 June 2020 · Romania

Cross-border refund where the claimant should have been VAT registered

The derogation applies only where two cumulative conditions are met: the use of the goods in the destination Member State for the service supplied is temporary, and the goods were dispatched from the Member State where the supplier is established. Goods sent from other Member States, or used for an indefinite or extended period, fall outside it. Separately, refunds cannot be refused merely because the claimant is or should be VAT identified in the refund State. Only the cumulative conditions in Article 3 of Directive 2008/9 matter. Relevant to pooling, leasing and equipment hire structures moving assets around the EU, and to anyone facing a refund refusal grounded in national registration requirements.

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-10/19 Wilo Salmson France

Order · 5 June 2019 · Romania

Refund reference struck out for failing to explain the factual and legal context

The Court does not reach the question. The reference is manifestly inadmissible under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The order set out the subject matter in very summary terms, gave no factual data underpinning the questions, identified no applicable national provisions, and offered no reasons of the referring court's own, merely repeating the applicant's submissions. The order is a useful warning that a referring court cannot outsource the reasoning to a party.

C-133/18 Sea Chefs Cruise Services

Judgment · 2 May 2019 · France

Nature of the one-month deadline for additional information in cross-border refund claims

The one-month period is not a limitation period. Failure to reply, or a late reply, does not cause the applicant to lose the right to regularise the refund claim by producing the supporting information directly before the national court. The Court contrasted Article 15(1), which uses "at the latest" and is a limitation period, and noted that the information may be sought from third parties or another Member State's authorities, and that Article 26 denies default interest in such cases. Refusals of Directive 2008/9 refunds based solely on a missed one-month information deadline are open to challenge, and evidence can be filed for the first time before the national court, subject to national appeal forms and time limits under Article 23(2). Relevant to non-established claimants, particularly groups with recurring foreign VAT costs, and to advisers handling portal refund claims in Member States taking a strict line.

C-562/17 Nestrade

Judgment · 14 February 2019 · Spain

Time limit for correcting invoices in a Thirteenth Directive refund claim

The Thirteenth Directive, which is lex specialis to Articles 170 and 171, leaves the arrangements and time limits for refund claims to national law. It therefore does not preclude a time limit on rectifying incorrect invoices, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed, which the national court must verify. Where the authority already holds all the information needed to establish entitlement, it may not impose further conditions. Here it appears it did not. Relevant to non-EU businesses claiming refunds of EU input VAT and to their advisers.

C-81/17 Zabrus Siret

Judgment · 26 April 2018 · Romania

Correcting VAT returns for periods already audited

Those provisions and principles preclude such legislation. Where an inspection follows shortly after filing, the shortened window makes deduction impossible or excessively difficult. Refusal of deduction for a remediable formal failure, absent evasion or loss to the exchequer, is disproportionate. Legal certainty cannot be invoked by the authorities here, since the system also permits correction on their initiative and reopening on new information, so it serves the efficiency of inspections rather than taxpayers' rights. Fatorie distinguished. Member States may instead impose administrative fines on negligent taxpayers. Member States may keep a limitation period for claiming deduction, but cannot truncate it by treating a closed audit as a bar to taxpayer-initiated corrections.

C-533/16 Volkswagen

Judgment · 21 March 2018 · Slovakia

Start of the limitation period for refunds where VAT is invoiced years late

EU law precludes a Member State from refusing a refund on the ground that a limitation period running from the date of supply had expired, where the VAT was charged to and paid by the taxable person only several years after the supply. The right arises when the tax becomes chargeable but is exercisable only once an invoice is held. The qualification is that this applies where the claimant showed no lack of diligence and there was no abuse, fraudulent collusion or risk of non-payment. Relevant to non-established businesses making Directive 2008/9 claims and to any taxable person receiving late corrective invoices after a supplier reclassifies an exempt transaction as taxable.

C-387/16 Nidera

Judgment · 28 February 2018 · Lithuania

Reduction of default interest on late VAT refunds

Article 183, read with fiscal neutrality, precludes such a reduction. Interest merely compensates unavailability of funds, so neither its size relative to the principal nor the length of the delay can justify cutting it, and a refusal later shown to be unlawful is no different from ordinary administrative delay. Member States may set a flat rate, which by nature may exceed or fall short of actual loss, but having chosen a flat rate, they cannot then substitute compensation for proven actual loss. Relevant to any business pursuing repayment interest where a Member State has withheld a VAT credit pending inspection or on a ground later found contrary to EU law.

C-441/16 SMS Group

Judgment · 21 September 2017 · Romania

Refund of import VAT where the intended transaction never happens

The refund cannot be refused on that ground. The importer acted as a taxable person because, judged by objective evidence at the time of importation (the advance received and the subcontract concluded), it intended to use the goods for an economic activity, here an eventual export within Article 146. Suspension of the contract was irrelevant. The right, once arisen, is retained where the planned transaction fails for reasons beyond the taxable person's control, absent fraud or abuse. Demanding proof of subsequent movements adds a substantive condition the VAT system does not provide.

C-55/16 Evo Bus

Order · 30 June 2016 · Romania

Proof of payment cannot be required from a non established refund claimant

The Court holds that it does preclude such a rule. Articles 3 and 4 list the obligations a claimant must satisfy, and Article 6 allows a Member State to require nothing further except, in particular cases, the information needed to assess whether a claim is well founded. Proof of payment is not among the listed obligations, and a general national requirement of that kind is incompatible with the directive. Decided under the Eighth Directive but the reasoning transfers directly to Directive 2008/9, whose Articles 8 to 10 operate the same way.

C-120/15 Kovozber

Order · 21 October 2015 · Slovakia

Interest on a delayed VAT refund cannot wait for the tax inspection to end

Ruling by reasoned order under Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court held that Article 183 does preclude such legislation. Member States retain procedural autonomy over the arrangements for repayment, but those arrangements must not make the taxable person bear, even in part, the financial burden of the tax. Where repayment is not made within a reasonable period, the losses caused by the unavailability of the sums must be compensated by default interest, and a rule tying the start of interest to the end of an inspection defeats that requirement. Part of the settled line running through Enel Maritsa Iztok, Delphi Hungary and Rafinăria Steaua Română.

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-131/13 Schoenimport Italmoda Mariano Previti and Others

Judgment · 18 December 2014 · Netherlands

Refusing deduction, exemption and refund for known evasion without a national rule

The Court held that it is for the national authorities and courts to refuse those rights even in the absence of any provision of national law providing for refusal, where it is established on objective factors that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on formed part of evasion committed in a chain of supplies. It further held that the benefit may be refused notwithstanding that the evasion was carried out in a Member State other than the one in which the rights are claimed, and notwithstanding formal compliance with that State's legislation. The strongest statement of the anti-abuse principle in the VAT field.

C-654/13 Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó

Order · 17 July 2014 · Hungary

Interest on VAT locked up by a national condition contrary to EU law

Ruling by reasoned order, the Court held that EU law precludes such rules and practice. In the absence of EU legislation on the point it is for national law to lay down the arrangements for paying the interest, in compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. They must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic claims and must not make the exercise of EU rights practically impossible or excessively difficult, which the referring court must verify. National courts must, if necessary, disapply any national provision that conflicts with EU law. The link in the chain that matters where a national condition has already been condemned: striking down the condition is not enough, because the taxpayer has financed the State in the meantime.

C-323/12 E.ON Global Commodities

Judgment · 6 February 2014 · Romania

Effect of a retained tax representative on Eighth Directive refunds

A supplier of electricity to taxable dealers in another Member State may rely on the Eighth Directive there for a refund of input VAT, and that right is not excluded merely by having designated a tax representative identified for VAT purposes in that State. A representative is not an establishment, and identification alone does not show that taxable supplies were actually made there. The national court must still verify that no supplies with a place of supply in Romania were in fact made. The provisions have direct effect. Relevant to energy traders and any business that retained a legacy tax representative or a VAT number in a Member State after reverse charge rules removed the need for one.

C-622/11 Pactor Vastgoed

Judgment · 10 October 2013 · Netherlands

Who bears the clawback on an adjusted deduction

The Directive precludes recovering sums due on adjustment of a deduction from anyone other than the taxable person who applied it. Designating the debtor is a substantive rule, not a procedural detail Member States may fix. Article 21 lists exhaustively when another person can be liable, and the joint and several liability option does not permit a separate liability. Neither Article 20(4) nor the Netherlands reverse charge derogation supports charging the purchaser for an acquisition to which it was extraneous. Relevant to property investors and developers, and to advisers on opted-to-tax land and building transfers, particularly in the Netherlands where the clawback provision was struck down.

C-191/12 Alakor Gabonatermelő és Forgalmazó

Judgment · 16 May 2013 · Hungary

Refusal to repay VAT already covered by subsidy

The repayment principle does not preclude refusal to repay the part of the VAT that was subsidised by aid, but only if the economic burden of the deduction refusal has been completely neutralised, which the national court must verify. The test is whether the aid would have been lower had deduction been allowed. Repayment must equal the blocked VAT less any excess aid attributable to it. The source of the funding, EU or national, is irrelevant. Relevant to recipients of grant funding where national rules formerly restricted deduction on subsidised acquisitions, and to advisers running historic recovery claims in Hungary and comparable regimes.

C-271/12 Petroma Transports and Others

Judgment · 8 May 2013 · Belgium

Late correction of incomplete invoices and the right to deduct

Correction of defective invoices is not prohibited, but the decisive point is timing. Where the supplementary information reaches the authority only after the refusal decision has been adopted, deduction may be refused. Member States could, under the Sixth Directive, require particulars beyond the listed minimum, provided these are limited to what is necessary and do not make deduction practically impossible. Neutrality gives no right to a refund to the supplier. The services were actually performed, so the VAT was due and correctly paid. Confirms that the Pannon Gép window for regularising invoices closes when the authority takes its decision. Relevant to intra-group service and management charge arrangements, where lump sum invoicing without hours or unit rates remains a common audit target.

C-138/12 Rusedespred

Judgment · 11 April 2013 · Bulgaria

Refund of VAT invoiced in error where the customer's deduction has been definitively refused

Neutrality precludes refusal of the refund in those circumstances. Article 203 exists to remove the risk of loss of tax revenue. Where deduction has been definitively refused that risk is wholly eliminated, and conditioning the refund on a correction that national law makes impossible goes beyond what is necessary. The obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise, so the taxable person may rely on the principle against the national provision. Suppliers who wrongly charge VAT on exempt supplies, notably on older buildings and associated works, have a route to recovery once the customer's deduction has been finally refused, even if the domestic correction or credit note mechanism has by then closed.

C-318/11 Daimler and Widex

Judgment · 25 October 2012 · Sweden

Fixed establishment and refunds to non-established taxable persons

Such a taxable person has no fixed establishment of that kind. The test is cumulative because there must be a fixed establishment and actual output taxable transactions effected from it. A mere ability to make supplies is insufficient, so testing or research activities alone do not defeat the refund claim and there is no need to decide whether a fixed establishment exists. The presence of a wholly owned subsidiary supplying services for the testing activity does not alter this. The subsidiary is a separate taxable person and did not make the purchases. Tax authorities cannot refuse Eighth Directive or Directive 2008/9 refunds by pointing to permanent premises, staff or equipment alone.

C-294/11 Elsacom

Judgment · 21 June 2012 · Italy

Deadline for cross-border refund applications is a time bar

The Court held that the six-month period is a mandatory time-limit. Although some language versions (Spanish, Italian, English) are ambiguous, Annex C, Section B and other versions (French, German, Dutch) show it is a final date. A non-mandatory reading would either let divergent national limitation rules apply, defeating harmonisation, or leave refund claims open indefinitely, contrary to legal certainty. The later three-month extension under Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9 confirms this. Confirms that late cross-border refund claims are simply lost, with no scope to invoke longer or shorter national limitation periods. Relevant to businesses recovering VAT in Member States where they are not established, and to their refund agents.

C-427/10 Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta

Judgment · 15 December 2011 · Italy

Mismatched time-limits for recovering VAT paid but not due

The Court held that the principle of effectiveness does not preclude such asymmetric time-limits, and a two-year fiscal limitation period is in itself reasonable, provided the supplier can effectively claim reimbursement from the tax authority. That condition is not met where applying the rules, here by giving the 1999 circular retroactive effect so that time ran from payment, totally deprives the supplier of any refund of VAT it has had to repay to its customers. Relevant wherever a tax authority changes its view on exemption retroactively and customers then reclaim VAT from suppliers under general civil law.

C-259/10 Rank Group

Judgment · 10 November 2011 · United Kingdom

Fiscal neutrality and the gambling exemption for slot machines and mechanised bingo

A difference in treatment of supplies identical or similar from the consumer's viewpoint, meeting the same needs, suffices. No separate proof of competition or distortion is needed. Licensing categories, regulatory regimes, legality, operator identity, venue and unharmonised taxes are irrelevant. For two slot machine types, comparability is judged from the average consumer's perspective, notably stakes, prizes and chances of winning. No repayment where the comparator exemption was merely an unlawful administrative practice. No due diligence defence. Operators of gaming machines and similar gambling products can challenge selective taxation without economic evidence of competition, and cannot be answered by pointing to different gambling licensing regimes. Relevant to gambling operators, betting shops and advisers handling historic overpayment claims.

C-274/10 Commission v Hungary

Judgment · 28 July 2011 · Hungary

Refund of excess input VAT conditional on payment of the supplier

Hungary infringed the Directive. Chargeability and the creation and exercise of the right of deduction are in principle independent of whether the consideration has been paid. Payment only matters in the specific cases the Directive expressly provides for, such as Article 66(b), which Hungary had not used. Payment of the supplier therefore cannot be a refund "condition" under Article 183. Carrying an excess forward over several periods is not inherently unlawful, but here it risked no refund within a reasonable period. Confirms that Member States' discretion over refund procedures under Article 183 is procedural only and cannot introduce substantive conditions bearing on the deduction itself.

C-107/10 Enel Maritsa Iztok 3

Judgment · 12 May 2011 · Bulgaria

Default interest on delayed refunds of excess VAT

Article 183 precludes retrospective extension of the refund period where it deprives the taxable person of an accrued right to default interest. It also precludes deferring the start of interest to completion of a tax investigation where the excess has already been carried forward for three tax periods. The option of posting cash security does not save that regime. A 45 day normal refund period is compatible. Refund by set-off is permitted, provided effective remedies exist to contest the debt relied on. Relevant to any business holding persistent VAT credits in Member States that suspend refund clocks during audits.

C-582/08 Commission v United Kingdom

Judgment · 15 July 2010 · United Kingdom

Refunds to non-EU businesses for exempt insurance and financial supplies

The Court dismissed the action. Article 2(1) of the Thirteenth Directive is lex specialis in relation to Articles 170 and 171 of the VAT Directive, so the generally worded refund entitlement in Article 170 cannot override its clear and precise wording, which covers only Article 169(a) and (b) transactions. Even if the Commission were right that the legislature erred, and that the reading is inconsistent with the logic of the VAT system, it is not for the Court to correct the provision or extend Member States' obligations. Confirms that non-EU insurers, banks and other financial services providers have no directive-based right to a Thirteenth Directive refund of input VAT attributable to exempt insurance and financial supplies, even though EU-established competitors recover under the Eighth Directive (now Directive 2008/9).

C-472/08 Alstom Power Hydro

Judgment · 21 January 2010 · Latvia

Three-year time limit for claiming a VAT refund

Article 18(4) does not preclude such a rule. Silence in the provision does not mean the right to repayment can be exercised without temporal limit. Unlimited claims would offend legal certainty. In the absence of Union rules, national procedural conditions apply subject to equivalence and effectiveness, and a three-year period is reasonable: it normally allows a reasonably diligent taxable person to assert its rights, a fortiori since a two-year limit has already been accepted for deduction. Confirms that Member States may cap refund claims for excess input VAT by a domestic limitation period, and that three years is comfortably within tolerance.

C-433/08 Yaesu Europe

Judgment · 3 December 2009 · Germany

Signature on a non-established trader's VAT refund claim

"Signature" is a concept of Community law with the same meaning in all Member States. It does not require signature by the taxable person itself. The signature of an authorised agent suffices. Annex A requires only a "signature", without the qualifier "of the applicant" used for other entries, and Article 6 bars Member States from imposing obligations beyond Articles 3 and 4, so a national requirement of an original handwritten signature by the taxable person is precluded. The Directive does not exclude appointing an agent. Refund agents, law firms and advisers filing cross-border reclaims for non-established businesses can sign in the client's name under a power of attorney. Relevant to any refund refused on that formal ground, and a reminder that formalities not appearing in the harmonised form cannot be added nationally.

C-1/08 Athesia Druck

Judgment · 19 February 2009 · Italy

Place of supply of advertising services and the role of the fiscal representative

In principle the place is the recipient's establishment, even where that recipient is only an intermediate customer and not the final advertiser. A Member State may however use Article 9(3)(b) to bring the supply onshore where the advertising messages are broadcast from its territory. That option covers only the supply made by the Community provider to the (final or intermediate) recipient, not the onward supplies made by the non-Community intermediary to its own clients. Appointing a fiscal representative is in itself irrelevant to taxability, and taxation does not bar a Thirteenth Directive refund. Relevant to media agencies and advertising intermediaries buying space in one Member State for non-EU principals, and to their fiscal representatives.

C-90/05 Commission v Luxembourg

Judgment · 19 January 2006 · Luxembourg

Luxembourg's delays in refunding VAT to non-established businesses

The Court upheld the action. By not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country, Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of the Eighth Directive. Administrative practice or the state of the national system cannot justify a failure to comply with a directive, and compliance is assessed by reference to the situation at the end of the period set in the reasoned opinion. Luxembourg was ordered to pay the costs. An early instance of the Court treating refund deadlines as substantive rather than indicative.

C-136/99 Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena

Judgment · 13 July 2000 · France

Partial refund of VAT to a partly exempt bank established abroad

A partial refund is available. The amount is calculated in two stages: first identify the transactions giving rise to deduction in the Member State of establishment under Articles 17(5) and 19. Then adjust that proportion by counting only those transactions which would also give a right to deduct if carried out in the Member State of refund, and apply it to expenditure that is deductible in the refund State. Both sets of rules therefore apply, cumulatively. Relevant to partly exempt businesses, especially banks, insurers and financial groups, incurring foreign VAT on representative offices and other costs serving mixed activity.

C-330/95 Goldsmiths

Judgment · 3 July 1997 · United Kingdom

Bad debt relief where the unpaid consideration is in kind

The derogation does not allow such an exclusion. The power to derogate is confined to non-payment and must be justified. A general and systematic exclusion of all barter transactions goes beyond what is strictly necessary to counter evasion, particularly where no evasion risk exists. Since consideration in money and in kind capable of expression in money are economically identical, the exclusion discriminates against barter. No limitation of the judgment's temporal effect was granted, no tangible proof of serious difficulties having been offered. Member States retain the option to refuse bad debt relief altogether, but if they grant it they cannot restrict it to monetary consideration.

C-302/93 Debouche

Judgment · 26 September 1996 · Netherlands

Cross-border refunds where the applicant's own supplies are exempt

Such a lawyer cannot obtain the refund. A trader who is exempt in his State of establishment, and therefore has no right to deduct there, cannot obtain the Article 3(b) certificate from that State, and without it no Eighth Directive refund is due. The refund State's own deduction rules do not rescue the claim. The Eighth Directive is not intended to undermine the Sixth Directive, and a refund would put the claimant in a better position than taxed local lawyers. Confirms that cross-border refund entitlement is governed by the claimant's status in his home State, not by how the same activity is treated where the cost is incurred.

Related topics

Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Right of deduction · Fiscal neutrality · Recovery of undue payment · Invoicing · Effectiveness · Exemptions for intra-Community transactions · Harmonisation of fiscal legislation · Principles of equivalence and effectiveness · Limitation period