- 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-227/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘HA.EN.’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input VAT — Sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons — Vendor subject to insolvency proceedings — National practice under which the purchaser is denied the right of deduction on the ground that he or she knew or should have known of the vendor’s difficulties in paying the output tax — Fraud and abuse of rights — Conditions)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0227
62021CA0227
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
31.10.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 418/9
(Case C-227/21) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input VAT - Sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons - Vendor subject to insolvency proceedings - National practice under which the purchaser is denied the right of deduction on the ground that he or she knew or should have known of the vendor’s difficulties in paying the output tax - Fraud and abuse of rights - Conditions)
(2022/C 418/11)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UAB ‘HA.EN.’
Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Operative part of the judgment
Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principle of fiscal neutrality,
must be interpreted as precluding a national practice under which, in the context of the sale of an item of immovable property between taxable persons, the purchaser is denied the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) merely because he or she knew or should have known that the vendor was in financial difficulty, or even insolvent, and that that circumstance could result in the vendor not paying or not being able to pay VAT into the public purse.
(*)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
* * *