- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-277/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0277
62014CA0277
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 414/7
(Case C-277/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Right of deduction - Refusal - Sale by an entity regarded as non-existent))
(2015/C 414/09)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: PPUH Stehcemp sp. j. Florian Stefanek, Janina Stefanek, Jarosław Stefanek
Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Łodzi
Operative part of the judgment
The provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a taxable person is not allowed to deduct the value added tax due or paid in respect of goods that were delivered to him on the grounds that the invoice was issued by a trader which is to be regarded, in the light of the criteria provided by that legislation, as a non-existent trader, and that it is impossible to determine the identity of the actual supplier of the goods, except where it is established, on the basis of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
* * *