Sept 30, 2021
Judgment in C-186/20 (Hydina SK)
A Slovakian referral
- Must recital 25 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax, which states that ‘the time limits laid down in this Regulation for the provision of information are to be understood as maximum periods not to be exceeded’, be interpreted as meaning that those time limits cannot be exceeded and that exceeding them results in the suspension of a tax audit being unlawful?
- Does failure to comply with the time limits for implementing the international exchange of information provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax result in consequences for (sanctions against) the requested authority and the requesting authority?
- Can international exchange of information that does not comply with the time limits laid down in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax be regarded as unlawful interference in the rights of a taxable person?
- asking whether recital 25 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of VAT, which states that ‘the time limits laid down in this Regulation for the provision of information are to be understood as maximum periods not to be exceeded’, is to be interpreted as meaning that those time limits cannot be exceeded and that exceeding them results in the suspension of a tax audit being unlawful? Does failure to comply with the time limits for implementing the international exchange of information provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 result in consequences for (sanctions against) the requested authority and the requesting authority? Can international exchange of information that does not comply with the time limits laid down in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 be regarded as unlawful interference in the rights of a taxable person?
Previous posts about this case can be found HERE
Judgment in C-299/20 (Icade Promotion)
A French referral
- Article 392 of the VAT Directive
- Application of the ‘margin scheme’ to transactions for the supply of immovable property the purchase of which has been subject to VAT, without the taxable person who subsequently resells the property having the right to deduct that tax, or does it permit that scheme to be applied to transactions, the purchase of which has not been subject to VAT, either because that purchase falls outside the scope of VAT or because it falls within the scope of VAT but is exempt?
For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE
October 6, 2021
Judgment in C-544/19 (ECOTEX BULGARIA) – NOT a VAT Case
A Bulgarian referral
- whether a ban on cash payments when combating fraud according to AG CJEU not in violation of EU law
For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE
Judgment in C-717/19 (Boehringer Ingelheim)
A Hungarian referral
-
Related to the reduction of the taxable amount; Agreement between pharmaceutical company and health insurer
For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE
October 14, 2021
Judgment in joined cases C-45/20 (Finanzamt N (Communication de l’affectation) & C-46/20 (Finanzamt G (Communication de l’affectation)
A German referral
- Article 167 & 168(a) of the VAT Directive
- VAT deduction – is a business entitled to choose the allocation of the costs against private and business use at the time of purchase but a decision on the allocation is not made before the expiry of the deadline for submission of the annual VAT return?
For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE
October 21, 2021
Judgment in C-80/20 (Wilo Salmson France)
A Romanian referral
- Article 167 & 178 of the VAT Directive
- Is there a distinction between the moment the right of deduction arises and the moment it is exercised with regard to the way in which the VAT system operates; whether the right to deduct VAT may be exercised where no (valid) tax invoice has been issued for the purchase of goods? Can an application for a refund be made in respect of VAT which became chargeable prior to the ‘refund period’ but which was invoiced during the refund period? What are the effects of the annulment of invoices and the issuing of new invoices? Can national legislation make the refund of VAT conditional on the chargeability of VAT in a situation where a corrected invoice is issued during the application period?
For prior newsitems on this case, click HERE
