The ECJ issued the questions in the case C-709/22 (Syndyk Masy Upadlosci A) .
Context: VAT fraud, insolvency, bankruptcy, rule of law
Article in the EU VAT Directive
Articles 206, 226, 273, 395 in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC.
Article 206 (Payment arrangements)
Any taxable person liable for payment of VAT must pay the net amount of the VAT when submitting the VAT return provided for in Article 250. Member States may, however, set a different date for payment of that amount or may require interim payments to be made.
Article 226 (Content of invoices)
Article 273 (Misc. provisions)
Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.
The option under the first paragraph may not be relied upon in order to impose additional invoicing obligations over and above those laid down in Chapter 3.
Article 395 (Simplification measures and measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance)
1. The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise any Member State to introduce special measures for derogation from the provisions of this Directive, in order to simplify the procedure for collecting VAT or to prevent certain forms of tax evasion or avoidance.
Measures intended to simplify the procedure for collecting VAT may not, except to a negligible extent, affect the overall amount of the tax revenue of the Member State collected at the stage of final consumption.
2. A Member State wishing to introduce the measure referred to in paragraph 1 shall send an application to the Commission and provide it with all the necessary information. If the Commission considers that it does not have all the necessary information, it shall contact the Member State concerned within two months of receipt of the application and specify what additional information is required.
Once the Commission has all the information it considers necessary for appraisal of the request it shall within one month notify the requesting Member State accordingly and it shall transmit the request, in its original language, to the other Member States.
3. Within three months of giving the notification referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 2, the Commission shall present to the Council either an appropriate proposal or, should it object to the derogation requested, a communication setting out its objections.
4. The procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall, in any event, be completed within eight months of receipt of the application by the Commission.
Facts
The bankruptcy trustee has requested permission from the lower tax authority to transfer money from the VAT account of the insolvent taxpayer to the account of the bankrupt estate. He has indicated that the money should be transferred to the municipal bank account to pay the property taxes due. The trustee has pointed out that the company has no outstanding debts to the treasury since the date of insolvency. The money in the VAT account has accumulated during the insolvency proceedings. It is certain that the claims reported by another tax authority relate to the state of affairs prior to the declaration of insolvency and that they are included in the list of claims. In accordance with the applicable provisions, all debts to public law authorities, in addition to other non-public debts, are satisfied under the second class of performance. The public law authorities are therefore treated on an equal footing with the other creditors of the insolvent taxpayer. With regard to the satisfaction of the bankrupt’s creditors, the provisions of the Insolvency Act constitute a lex specialis vis-à-vis those of the VAT Act and the Banking Act. Consequently, it is not possible, in the context of a bankruptcy, to settle debts towards the tax authorities ‘automatically’, so to speak, from the separate VAT account in the event of late payment by the taxable person. The money on the VAT account therefore belongs to the taxable person. Since the negative conditions, i.e. back taxes and amounts due as referred to in Article 62b(2)(2)(a) of the Banking Law, have not been met, it has been pointed out that the submitted request is justified. The lower tax authority has refused to agree to this. It referred to the wording of Article 108b(1) and (5) of the VAT Law and Article 62b(2)(2)(a) of the Banking Law and stressed that on the date of the decision the insolvent company was still had VAT debts and debts in the field of income tax and these debts exceeded the amount in respect of which the trustee requested a transfer to the said bank account,
Consideration:
The doubts of the referring court relate to the correctness of the introduction and the limits of application of the national measure on the split payment mechanism, which was adopted to combat VAT fraud. The mechanism is temporarily authorized by Decision 2019/310. It follows from the wording of Article 1 of the Decree that it refers to Article 226 of the VAT Directive. A specific statement should therefore be included on the invoice, namely ‘split payment mechanism’. This is reflected in the wording of Article 106e(1)(18a) of the VAT Act. The first issue which has raised doubts in the referring court boils down to whether the national measure adopted should not be regarded as a derogation from Article 206 of the VAT Directive and as such an appropriate notification within the meaning of Article 395 of the VAT directive required. The referring court has also expressed doubts about the violation of the right to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter. It is common ground that money in a VAT account belongs to the taxable person, even if the latter is in a state of insolvency. Blocking such amounts limits the use that can be made of them. Thirdly, the fight against VAT fraud is one of the recognized objectives of the Union and cannot be judged solely in terms of effectiveness. The means and methods used in the fight against VAT fraud must comply with the requirements of the rule of law. The aspects of the main proceedings make it clear that the Polish legal system is incoherent. A restriction on the enjoyment of funds in a VAT account whose transfer has been requested by the bankruptcy trustee following the declaration of insolvency of a VAT payer, by means of an interpretation of the provisions that does not take into account the legal limitations resulting from Union law , can hardly be regarded as a measure that is proportionate to the objective pursued, namely the fight against VAT fraud. The aspects of the main proceedings make it clear that the Polish legal system is incoherent. A restriction on the enjoyment of funds in a VAT account whose transfer has been requested by the bankruptcy trustee following the declaration of insolvency of a VAT payer, by means of an interpretation of the provisions that does not take into account the legal limitations resulting from Union law , can hardly be regarded as a measure that is proportionate to the objective pursued, namely the fight against VAT fraud. The aspects of the main proceedings make it clear that the Polish legal system is incoherent. A restriction on the enjoyment of funds in a VAT account whose transfer has been requested by the bankruptcy trustee following the declaration of insolvency of a VAT payer, by means of an interpretation of the provisions that does not take into account the legal limitations resulting from Union law , can hardly be regarded as a measure that is proportionate to the objective pursued, namely the fight against VAT fraud.
Questions
1. Should the provisions of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/310 of 18 February 2019 authorizing Poland apply a special measure derogating from Article 226 of Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of tax on the added value (OJ 2019 L 51 , p. 19), the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1 ), in particular Articles 395 and 273 thereof,and the principles of proportionality and neutrality are interpreted as precluding a national provision and practice whereby, in the circumstances of the present case, a bankruptcy trustee is refused permission to transfer money held in a taxable person’s VAT account (split payment mechanism) to a bank account designated by this taxpayer?
2. Should Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1), entitled ‘Right to property’, read in conjunction with Article 51(1) and Article 52(1) thereof, be interpreted as precluding a national provision and practice whereby, in the circumstances of the present case, a bankruptcy trustee is refused permission to transfer money to the VAT account of a taxpayer state (split payment mechanism) so that this money, which belongs to an insolvent taxpayer, is frozen in that VAT account and the bankruptcy trustee is prevented from fulfilling his duties in the context of pending insolvency proceedings?
3. Should the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (OJ 2007 C 326, p. 391) and the principle of legal certainty which it is intended to achieve, the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) , of that Treaty) and the principle of good administration (Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights), taking into account the context and purposes of Council Decision 2019/310 and of the provisions of Directive 2006/ 112/EC, be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a bankruptcy trustee is refused permission to transfer money held in a taxable person’s VAT account (split payment mechanism),which determines the purposes of insolvency proceedings opened by a Polish bankruptcy court, which is empowered to do so under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) ( OJ 2015 L 141, p. 19) cannot be achieved, thus creating a situation in which the Treasury, as a result of the application of an inadequate national measure, is favored as a creditor to the detriment of other creditors?as a result of the application of an inadequate national measure, as a creditor is favored at the expense of other creditors?as a result of the application of an inadequate national measure, as a creditor is favored at the expense of other creditors?
AG Opinion
Decision
Summary
Source
Similar ECJ cases
- Cited (recent) case law: (C-336/14), (C-566/16), EN.SA (C-712/17), (C-648/16), ALTI (C-4/20), (C-286/94, C-340/95, C-401/95 and C-47/96), Teleos and Others (C-409/04), Paper Consult (C-101/16), (C-110 /98 to C-147/98), (C-80/11 and C-142/11), R. (C-285/09), (C-189/01), Glencore Agriculture Hungary (C- 254/16), technoRent International and others (C-844/19), (C-617/10), Commission v Hungary (C-235/17), N. (C-601/15 PPU), (C-524 /15)
Reference to the case in the other EU MS
Newsletters
Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
For an overview of ECJ cases per article of the EU VAT Directive, click HERE
