# C_2012250EN.01000501.xml

| 18.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/5

---

Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság and the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11) and Péter Dávid v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11)

(Joined Cases C-80/11 and C-142/11) (1)

1

(Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Conditions governing the exercise of that right - Article 273 - National measures to combat fraud - Practice of the national tax authorities - Refusal of the right to deduct in the event of improper conduct on the part of the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods or services in respect of which the exercise of that right is sought - Burden of proof - Obligation of the taxable person to satisfy himself as to the propriety of the conduct of the issuer of that invoice and to provide proof thereof)

2012/C 250/08

Language of the cases: Hungarian

Referring courts

Referring courts

Baranya Megyei Bíróság, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Mahagében kft (C-80/11), Péter Dávid (C-142/11)

Applicants:

Defendants: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-80/11), Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-alföldi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (C-142/11)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Conditions for exercising the right to deduct input tax according to the practice of the national tax authorities — Obligation of the taxable person to prove that the transaction listed on the invoice actually occurred and that the company issuing the invoice acted properly

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax which he is liable to pay, the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him, on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly, without that authority establishing, on the basis of objective evidence, that the taxable person concerned knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoice or by another trader acting earlier in the chain of supply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a), 220(1) and 226 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax which he is liable to pay, the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him, on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services, or one of his suppliers, acted improperly, without that authority establishing, on the basis of objective evidence, that the taxable person concerned knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoice or by another trader acting earlier in the chain of supply.

| 2. | Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods in respect of which the exercise of the right to deduct is sought had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of value added tax, or on the ground that, in addition to that invoice, that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled, although the substantive and formal conditions laid down by Directive 2006/112 for exercising the right to deduct were fulfilled and the taxable person is not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud have been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 167, 168(a), 178(a) and 273 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses the right to deduct on the ground that the taxable person did not satisfy himself that the issuer of the invoice relating to the goods in respect of which the exercise of the right to deduct is sought had the status of a taxable person, that he was in possession of the goods in question and was in a position to supply them, and that he had satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of value added tax, or on the ground that, in addition to that invoice, that taxable person is not in possession of other documents capable of demonstrating that those conditions were fulfilled, although the substantive and formal conditions laid down by Directive 2006/112 for exercising the right to deduct were fulfilled and the taxable person is not in possession of any material justifying the suspicion that irregularities or fraud have been committed within that invoice issuer’s sphere of activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

1

---