- 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-108/20: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — HR v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal — Fraud — Supply chain — Refusal of the right to deduct where the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his or her purchase, he or she was participating in a transaction connected to VAT fraud)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CB0108
62020CB0108
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
19.7.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 289/17
(Case C-108/20)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167 and 168 - Right to deduct input VAT - Refusal - Fraud - Supply chain - Refusal of the right to deduct where the taxable person knew or should have known that, by his or her purchase, he or she was participating in a transaction connected to VAT fraud)
(2021/C 289/24)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant HR
Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
Operative part of the order
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a national practice whereby the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT) paid is refused to a taxable person who has acquired goods having been the subject of input VAT fraud committed upstream in the supply chain and who knew or should have known of it, even though he or she did not actively participate in that fraud.
(1) OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.