- 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-142/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Court (Hungary) lodged on 23 March 2011 — Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0142
62011CN0142
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
18.6.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 179/10
(Case C-142/11)
2011/C 179/17
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Péter Dávid
Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
Questions referred
1.Are the provisions relating to VAT deductions in Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC (2) of 20 December 2001 (‘the Sixth Directive’) and, as regards 2007, in Council Directive 2006/112/EC (3) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that the right of deduction of a taxable person may be restricted or prohibited by the tax authority, on the basis of strict liability, if the invoice issuer cannot guarantee that the involvement of further subcontractors complied with the rules?
2.Where the tax authority does not dispute that the economic activity detailed in the invoice actually took place, nor that the form of the invoice complies with the legal provisions, may the authority lawfully prohibit a VAT refund if the identity of the other subcontractors used by the invoice issuer cannot be determined, or invoices have not been issued in accordance with the rules by the latter?
3.Is a tax authority which prohibits the exercise of the right of deduction in accordance with paragraph 2 obliged to ensure during its procedures that the taxable person with the right of deduction was aware of unlawful conduct, possibly engaged in for the purpose of tax avoidance, of the companies behind the subcontracting chain, or even colluded in such conduct?
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001 amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to simplifying, modernising and harmonising the conditions laid down for invoicing in respect of value added tax (OJ 2002 L 15, p. 24).
(3) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).