- 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-532/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v AB SEB bankas
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0532
62016CN0532
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
9.1.2017
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 6/28
(Case C-532/16)
(2017/C 006/35)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Other party: AB SEB bankas
Questions referred
1.Must Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the deduction adjustment mechanism provided for in Directive 2006/112 is not applicable in cases where an initial deduction of value added tax (VAT) could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was an exempt transaction relating to the supply of land?
2.Is the answer to the first question affected by the fact that (1) the VAT on the purchase of the plots of land was initially deducted because of the tax administration’s practice under which the supply in question was incorrectly regarded as being a supply of building land subject to VAT, as provided for in Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112, and/or (2) after the initial deduction made by the purchaser, the supplier of the land issued a VAT credit note to the purchaser adjusting the amounts of VAT indicated (specified) on the initial invoice?
3.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 184 and/or 185 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where an initial deduction could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was exempt from VAT, the taxable person’s obligation to adjust that deduction must be considered to have arisen immediately or only when it became known that the initial deduction could not have been made?
4.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Directive 2006/112, and in particular Articles 179, 184 to 186 and 250 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the adjusted amounts of deductible input VAT must be deducted in the tax period in which the taxable person’s obligation and/or right to adjust the initial deduction arose?
Language of the case: Lithuanian
(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.