- 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: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input VAT — Article 168 — Goods supply chain — Refusal of the right to deduct on account of that chain’s existence — Obligation on the competent tax authority to establish the existence of an abusive practice)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0273
62018CA0273
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 305/20
(Case C-273/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input VAT - Article 168 - Goods supply chain - Refusal of the right to deduct on account of that chain’s existence - Obligation on the competent tax authority to establish the existence of an abusive practice)
(2019/C 305/24)
Language of the case: Latvian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’
Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
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, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of refusing the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT), the fact that an acquisition of goods took place at the end of a chain of successive sale transactions between several persons and that the taxable person acquired possession of the goods concerned in the warehouse of a person forming part of that chain, other than the person mentioned as supplier on the invoice, is not in itself sufficient to find the existence of an abusive practice on the part of the taxable person or the other persons participating in that chain, the competent tax authority being required to establish the existence of an undue tax advantage obtained by that taxable person or those other persons.
(*) Language of the case: Latvian.