# C_2016090EN.01000202.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Tibor Farkas v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-564/15)

(2016/C 090/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Kecskeméti Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tibor Farkas

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alfödi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a practice of the tax authority, based on the provisions of the Law on VAT, compatible with the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular the principle of proportionality with the objectives of tax neutrality and the prevention of tax fraud, if, by that practice, that authority declares that a purchaser of an item of property (or recipient of a service) is liable for a tax difference in a situation in which the seller of the property (or supplier of the service) issues an invoice in accordance with the ordinary tax system for a transaction to which the reverse charge procedure applies and declares and pays to the Treasury the tax relating to that invoice, and the purchaser of the item of property (or recipient of the service), for his part, deducts the VAT paid to the issuer of the invoice, even though he may not exercise his right to deduct the VAT declared as a tax difference? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a practice of the tax authority, based on the provisions of the Law on VAT, compatible with the provisions of the VAT Directive, (1) in particular the principle of proportionality with the objectives of tax neutrality and the prevention of tax fraud, if, by that practice, that authority declares that a purchaser of an item of property (or recipient of a service) is liable for a tax difference in a situation in which the seller of the property (or supplier of the service) issues an invoice in accordance with the ordinary tax system for a transaction to which the reverse charge procedure applies and declares and pays to the Treasury the tax relating to that invoice, and the purchaser of the item of property (or recipient of the service), for his part, deducts the VAT paid to the issuer of the invoice, even though he may not exercise his right to deduct the VAT declared as a tax difference?

1

| 2. | Is the imposition of a penalty for selecting an incorrect method of taxation in the case of a declaration of a tax difference, which also entails the imposition of a tax fine of 50 %, proportionate where the Treasury has not incurred any loss of revenue and there is no evidence of abuse? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the imposition of a penalty for selecting an incorrect method of taxation in the case of a declaration of a tax difference, which also entails the imposition of a tax fine of 50 %, proportionate where the Treasury has not incurred any loss of revenue and there is no evidence of abuse?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---