Triangular transaction EU VAT case law

5 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2018 to 2026.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 42 of Directive 2006/112/EC Place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods · 4 of these cases
Article 141 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions for intra-Community acquisitions of goods · 4 of these cases
Article 138 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions related to the supply of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 41 of Directive 2006/112/EC Place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 197 of Directive 2006/112/EC Persons liable for payment of VAT to the tax authorities · 1 of these cases
Article 226 of Directive 2006/112/EC Content of invoices · 1 of these cases
Article 265 of Directive 2006/112/EC Recapitulative statements · 1 of these cases

The 5 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.

T-773/25 Finanzamt für Großbetriebe

Judgment · 7 October 2026 · Austria

Triangular transactions, a first invoice marked 'Reverse charge' issued years later does not trigger the simplification, not even for the future

Issuing, several years after the supplies, invoices that carry the 'Reverse charge' reference for the first time does not trigger the legal consequences of the simplification for those supplies, and the adjustment cannot be declared in the current or a future tax period. The General Court builds on Luxury Trust Automobil (C-247/21). The reference is a substantive condition, and meeting it afterwards is not a correction but the first issue of the required invoice, which cannot be retroactive. Accepting an effect limited to the future would in substance be retroactive, since the regime that applied to those supplies until then, and the legal position of the final customer, would be changed after the event. In the meantime the tax under Article 41 and the intermediate acquirer's obligations to register, declare and pay in the Member State of destination have already arisen and do not disappear, so the aim of simplification can no longer be achieved, and taxation at destination may be at risk if, for instance, the final customer no longer exists. There was no need to answer the second and third questions. The judgment closes the question left open by Luxury Trust Automobil, which ruled out retroactive effect but did not say whether a late invoice could work for the future. It reaches intermediate acquirers in triangular chains whose original invoices lack the reference.

T-614/25 Trading 4

Judgment · 9 September 2026 · Latvia

Chain of supplies with a single intra-Community transport, triangular transaction, excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement, Articles 138(1), 141 and 197(1) of the VAT Directive

Those three circumstances do not, in themselves, exempt the supply made by the taxable person registered in the first Member State to the intermediary acquiring the goods and registered in the second. The third question was held inadmissible. The simplification arrangement in Article 141 concerns the intermediaries established in the second Member State, whereas the dispute concerns the application of Article 138(1), read in the light of Article 141, to the transactions carried out by Trading 4 in the first Member State, so the question bears no relation to the subject matter of the main proceedings. The judgment keeps the ascription of the single transport as the operative question in a chain, and refuses to let three surrounding facts stand in for it. It reaches fuel and other excise goods moving under suspension, where the duty arrangement and the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods run on separate tracks.

T-646/24 MS KLJUČAROVCI

Judgment · 3 December 2025 · Slovenia

Triangular simplification in a four party chain, and fraud

Article 141(c) does not require the person to whom the subsequent supply is made to take physical possession or receipt. Transport to that person's own customer in the same Member State does not prevent the condition being met, and the intermediary's knowledge of the onward supply is irrelevant, transactions being taxed on their objective characteristics. However, the authorities and courts of the Member State of identification must refuse both the Article 42 and 141 scheme and the second paragraph of Article 41 reduction where the acquirer knew or should have known it was participating in fraud in the chain. Useful for traders and advisers structuring chain transactions.

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-580/16 Firma Hans Bühler

Judgment · 19 April 2018 · Austria

Triangulation simplification, identification in the dispatch Member State and late recapitulative statements

Article 141(c) is met because only the VAT number under which the intermediary made the acquisition matters, so establishment and identification in the dispatch Member State do not block the simplification. Late filing of the recapitulative statement is a formal failure and cannot alone trigger Article 41 where the substantive condition in Article 42(a) is met, nor need the number still be valid when the statement is filed. Refusal remains possible where the taxable person knowingly participated in evasion or the breach prevents proof of the substantive conditions. Intermediaries in ABC chains can rely on triangulation even where they hold a VAT number in the dispatch Member State, provided they use their other number for the acquisition.