On 30 April 2020, the European |Court of Justice gave its judgment in case C‑258/19 (EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft.). Services supplied before Hungary acceded to the European Union — Exact price of that supply determined after accession — Invoice relating to that supply issued and paid after accession — Refusal on the grounds of limitation of the right of deduction based on that invoice.
Article in the EU VAT Directive
- Directive 77/388/EEC — First and third subparagraphs of Article 10(2), Article 17(1) and first subparagraph of Article 18(2)
- Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 63, Article 64(1), subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66, Article 167 and the first paragraph of Article 179
Facts
This is a Hungarian referral. This case was about a late invoice. There was a civil dispute between the parties, which was determined in judicial proceedings, and only at that point (in 2011), an invoice was issued. The Hungarian tax authorities refused input VAT deduction, arguing that the tax point of the transaction had already occurred earlier (2004) and that this was outside the statute of limitations.
Questions
Does the practice of a Member State infringe the principle of fiscal neutrality and the formal requirements of the right to deduct VAT where, for the purposes of exercising the right to deduct the tax, it has regard solely to the time the chargeable event occurred, and does not take into account the fact that there was a civil dispute between the parties concerning performance of the contract, which was determined in judicial proceedings, and that the invoice was only issued once a final judgment was delivered?
If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is it possible to exceed the limitation period for exercising the right to deduct VAT, set by the legislation of the Member State at five years from the time when the services were supplied?
If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, is the exercise of the right to deduct VAT affected by the conduct of the recipient of the invoice in the present case, which did not pay the contractor’s remuneration determined by a final judgment until the contractor had brought enforcement proceedings, for which reason the invoice was not issued until after the limitation period had expired?
AG Opinion
None
Decision
The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary).
Personal comments/VATupdate
In other words: because the transaction took place and the procedure sees at a period prior to the accession of Hungary to the EU, the ECJ finds itself not competent to answer the question.
Source
Similar ECJ cases
How did countries implement the case? Your feedback appreciated! Let us know
Newsletters
