- The article discusses cases where the right to deduct input VAT is denied.
- The most common cases involve knowledge or should have known of fraudulent VAT practices of contractors.
- The Supreme Administrative Court decided whether a taxable person knew or should have known they were involved in a fraudulent VAT transaction.
- The Court noted that this circumstance must be substantiated by objective evidence.
- The Court rejected arguments regarding legal consequences for an intermediary.
- Each taxpayer’s liability is individual and takes into account the infringement committed by the taxpayer.
- The Court of First Instance noted that the director of the company and the contractor were the same person.
- The applicant admitted that the company only formally concluded a contract with the UAB.
- The case establishes that the director of the company personally knew the manager of the companies.
- The Supreme Administrative Court notes that one company did not actually purchase the services from the other company.
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.
