According to the Supreme Court, it was not clear whether the opinion of the Court of Justice that the revision mechanism provided for a correction of the deduction wrongfully not made when acquiring goods or services also applied if at the time of the introduction it appeared that the original purpose for which VAT was due (and deductible) and the actual use were the same at the time of introduction and the national expiry period for exercising the right of deduction had expired. According to the Supreme Court, a broad interpretation of the revision mechanism was at odds with the line set out by the ECJ that a taxpayer who was not sufficiently diligent and who failed to deduct VAT on time, i.e. within the applicable expiry period, could be punished by the loss of the right to deduct. Next, the Supreme Court considered that the EU Court had not expressly excluded the revision regime in the event that the taxpayer had failed, at the time of purchasing a good or acquiring a service, to exercise a right to deduct input tax due to him at that time. According to the Supreme Court, it seemed disproportionate to deny the taxpayer the deduction at the time the goods or services were put into service if the right to the initial deduction had not been effected by mistake and no fraud or abuse of rights was involved nor were adverse consequences for the treasury established.
Update: it looks like this case is C-194/21
Sources:
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- EU and Indonesia conclude negotiations on free trade agreement
- ECJ Case: VAT Treatment of Loyalty Points vs Vouchers Under EU Directive
- FISC Hearing on Tax Implications of Trump Administration Policies September 23
- VAT Rules for Virtual Game Currencies: EU Court Advocate General Opinion
- Comments on ECJ C-472/24: AG Opinion on Taxation of Virtual Gold in Online Gaming
