- 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-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016CN0375
62016CN0375
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
24.10.2016
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 392/6
(Case C-375/16)
(2016/C 392/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach
Defendant: Igor Butin
Questions referred
1.Does Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax of 28 November 2006 (‘the VAT Directive’) require the taxable person to indicate an address at which he carries on his economic activities?
2.If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
a)Is a letterbox address sufficient as an indication of address pursuant to Article 226(5) of the VAT Directive?
b)Which address must a taxable person who operates an undertaking (in the Internet trade, for example) with no business premises indicate on an invoice?
3.In the event that the formal invoicing requirements laid down in Article 226 of the VAT Directive are not met, must the taxable person automatically be allowed to deduct input tax where no tax evasion has been committed or the taxable person did not know, and could not have known, of the connection with fraud or, in that event, does the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations presuppose that the taxable person has done everything that could reasonably be required of him in order to verify the accuracy of the content of the invoice?
Language of the case: German.