- The article focuses on cases where the right to deduct input VAT is denied.
- The most common reason for denial is knowledge or should have known of fraudulent VAT practices by contractors.
- The tax authorities analyze various circumstances to determine if the right to deduct input VAT should be denied.
- The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania has set out legal basis for applying VAT deduction.
- The Court has ruled that each taxpayer is individually liable for their own infringement.
- The Court has also ruled that the tax administration must provide objective evidence to substantiate claims of knowledge of fraudulent VAT practices.
- The Court has rejected arguments that an intermediary should not be held liable for fraudulent VAT practices.
Source: vatabout.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on C-513/24 (Oblastní nemocnice Kolín) – Obligation for the presence of goods in hospital not decisive for VAT deduction
- EPRS Report: Targeting VAT Fraud: How the Reverse Charge Mechanism Protects EU Revenues
- ECJ & General Court VAT Cases decided in 2026
- Comments on ECJ C-515/24: ECJ Upholds Spanish VAT Deduction Ban for Entertainment Expenses at Accession
- ECJ VAT C-513/24 (Oblastní nemocnice Kolín) – Judgment – Regulatory requirement alone insufficient for pro-rata VAT deduction for hospital equipment
