- 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-273/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 April 2018 — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0273
62018CN0273
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
(Case C-273/18)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’
Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Question referred
Must Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a refusal of the deduction of input value added tax (VAT) where the refusal is based solely on the fact that the taxpayer is knowingly involved in the arrangement of sham transactions, but it is not indicated how the outcome of those specific transactions is detrimental to the Treasury because of failure to pay VAT or an unjustified claim for repayment of VAT, as compared with the situation that would have obtained had the transactions been arranged to reflect the actual circumstances?
(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Language of the case: Latvian