Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2023:734
Date: 2023-10-05
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary C-279/22 – 1 
Case C-279/22  
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
22 April 2022 
Referring court: 
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
28 February 2022 
Applicant: 
CH 
Defendant: 
Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Appeals 
Directorate of the National Taxation and Customs Authority, 
Hungary) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Administrative-law action against a decision of the Tax Authority declaring the 
existence of a difference in the amount of tax due in respect of personal income 
tax and health insurance contributions and imposing a tax fine and a late payment 
surcharge.  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request  
Scope of Article 2 of Directive 2013/34/EU. 
Article 267 TFEU. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-279/22  
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling  
1. Is Article 2 of Directive 2013/34/EU to be interpreted as meaning that that 
provision does not cover taxpayers who are private individuals, but instead 
applies only to commercial companies and other types of undertaking listed 
in Annexes I and II to that directive?  
2. If the answer is in the affirmative, does this mean that, in the present case, 
the provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU which lay down obligations are 
consequently not applicable to private individuals, that is to say, that the 
obligations imposed on undertakings covered by that directive are not 
enforceable against taxpayers who are private individuals and cannot be 
used against them when examining their tax obligations?  
3. If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, is the action of the 
tax authority of a Member State – which consists in determining a tax 
difference owed by a taxpayer who is a private individual, on the basis of the 
provisions of the Law on Accounting, solely because the taxpayer has not 
been able to make available to the tax authority all the accounting 
documents of a commercial company which is independent of the taxpayer, 
in order to prove that he or she has, in the interests of that company, which is 
the employer, used the cash amounts which he or she has handled in the 
course of his or her work in accordance with instructions or orders and, 
consequently, the tax authority relies as against that taxpayer on the absence 
of certain documents which he or she was unlikely to have or could not have 
had for objective reasons, where the annual financial statements are publicly 
accessible as a result of the obligation of companies to publish them – in 
conformity with the basic accounting principles and with the objective and 
function of the publication requirement, laid down in Articles 4, 30 and 33 
of Directive 2013/34/EU, as well as with the right to a fair trial enshrined as 
a general principle of law in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union, and with the fundamental principles of legal 
certainty and proportionality?  
4. Are the provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU – in particular, the recitals and 
Articles 4, 6, 30 and 33 – to be interpreted as meaning that fulfilment of the 
obligations laid down in those articles gives rise to a legal presumption that 
the information in the annual financial statements complies with basic 
accounting principles, in particular the principle of accuracy and the 
principle of justification?  
5. Is action whereby the tax authority, without rebutting the legal presumption 
linked to compliance with the provisions of Directive 2013/34/EU and 
without examining the content of the tax return, does not accept the annual 
financial statements published by the company as evidence of the 
information contained therein – observing that those financial statements are 
in themselves insufficient to provide reliable proof of any such information, 
NEMZETI ADÓ- ÉS VÁMHIVATAL FELLEBBVITELI IGAZGATÓSÁGA 
 
3 
in particular of whether the taxpayer repaid to the commercial company the 
amounts which he or she had taken, but maintaining rather that the 
company’s entire accounting records are required for that purpose – in 
conformity with Articles 4, 6, 30 and 33 of Directive 2013/34/EU, as well as 
with the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and the 
fundamental principle of legal certainty?  
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 
2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and 
related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC 
of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 
78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC: recitals 4 and 57, and Articles 1, 4, 6, 30 and 33. 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: Article 47. 
Provisions of national law relied on  
A számvitelről szóló 2000. évi C. törvény (Act C of 2000 on Accounting): 
Articles 2, 12 and 165 to 168. 
A személyi jövedelemadóról szóló 1995. évi CXVII. törvény (Act CXVII of 1995 
on Personal Income Tax): Articles 1 and 28. 
Az adózás rendjéről szóló 2003. évi XCII. törvény (Act XCII of 2003 on the Rules 
of Taxation; ‘former rules of Taxationʼ): Articles 44 and 47. 
Az adózás rendjéről szóló 2017. évi CL. törvény (Act CL of 2017 on the Rules of 
Taxation; ‘new Rules of Taxationʼ): Article 78. 
Az adóigazgatási rendtartásról szóló 2017. évi CLI. törvény (Act CLI of 2017 on 
Tax Administration and the Regulation of Tax Administration): Articles 98 and 
99. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 31 July 2014, the applicant entered into a contract of employment with 
K. Kereskedőház Kft. (‘the employerʼ). As part of that employment relationship, 
the applicant had authorisation, between 1 January and 28 August 2015, to carry 
out operations on the employerʼs bank account and was entitled, inter alia, to 
withdraw cash from that account. 
2 When that employment relationship had ended, the employer certified that there 
was no outstanding credit or debt with the applicant. This was confirmed by the 
employer’s managing director in the evidence presented before the referring court. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-279/22  
 
4  
3 Subsequently, the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-budapesti Adóigazgatósága 
(North-Budapest Tax Directorate, part of the National Tax and Customs 
Authority, Hungary, ‘the first-instance Tax Authorityʼ) carried out an inspection 
of the employer.  
4 Since documents justifying the movements of funds in the employer’s bank 
account were not available, on 10 November 2018 the first-instance Tax Authority 
also initiated an a posteriori inspection of the applicant in respect of personal 
income tax and health insurance contributions. As a result of that inspection, it 
was declared that there was a tax difference, and a tax fine and a late payment 
surcharge were imposed on the applicant.  
5 In its decision, the Tax Authority stated that, despite the repeated requests made 
during the inspection, the applicant had not produced any documents justifying 
that the sums of money she had withdrawn had been used in the employer’s 
interests, and that the Tax Authority had been unable to obtain them either. 
6 The first-instance Tax Authority acknowledged that the provisions of the Act on 
Accounting concerning the issue and keeping of supporting documents do not 
apply to individuals. However, the obligation to keep documents, under both the 
former and new Rules on Taxation, includes supporting documents proving 
settlement of accounts with the employer, so that the applicant had to have them 
in her possession.  
7 In the absence of those documents, the first-instance Tax Authority taxed as other 
income the difference between the cash withdrawals and payments made by the 
applicant in 2015 from her employer’s bank account and the invoices paid in cash 
by the applicant, which had the result of increasing the income declared by the 
applicant for that period.  
8 Following the appeal brought by the applicant, the defendant confirmed that 
decision.  
9 The applicant brought an administrative-law action against that last decision, 
arguing that the defendant had failed to fulfil its obligation to clarify the facts and 
assess the evidence. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings  
10 According to the applicant, the documents proving settlement of accounts with 
the employer must be kept by the employer, in accordance with the provisions of 
the Law on Accounting. In that regard, the contested decision wrongly places the 
burden of proof on the applicant, since, under Article 98 of the Act on Tax 
Administration and the Regulation of Tax Administration, the burden of proof 
could fall on the applicant only if a tax deduction or tax exemption were obtained. 
However, in this case it was a question of proving that the money received did not 
constitute income which could be regarded as the taxpayer’s income. Furthermore, 
NEMZETI ADÓ- ÉS VÁMHIVATAL FELLEBBVITELI IGAZGATÓSÁGA 
 
5 
under Article 99 of the Act on Tax Administration and the Regulation of Tax 
Administration, the Tax Authority is required to conduct a thorough investigation 
of the facts, including those in favour of the taxpayer. 
11 The defendant, upholding the content of the decision, refers to the case-law of the 
Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary), to the provisions of the Act on Accounting 
relating to the issue and keeping of supporting documents, and to the provisions of 
the Act on Personal Income Tax relating to the burden of proof when the specific 
rule on reduction in tax liability is relied on or when tax relief is claimed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling  
12 The referring court states that the present dispute concerns, inter alia, the 
allocation of the burden of proof relating to the tax difference declared and the 
legal basis for that declaration. 
13 According to that court, of the specific provisions relied on by the defendant 
which, when applicable, place the burden of proof on the applicant, only the 
provisions of the Act on Accounting can be relevant to the present case. However, 
that Act transposes into national law a series of EU rules in the field of accounting 
– in particular the provisions of Directive 2013/34–, so that it concerns a 
harmonised legal framework. Therefore, the referring court considers that, in 
order to be able to give a ruling in the present case it needs an interpretation of 
those EU rules, an interpretation which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of 
Justice. In that regard, it refers to the judgments of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and 
Others (283/81, EU:C:1982:335), of 13 January 2022, MARCAS MC (C-363/20, 
EU:C:2022:21), and of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson (C-617/10, 
EU:C:2013:105, paragraphs 29 and 30). 
14 According to the referring court, the interpretation of the scope of the Act on 
Accounting and of Directive 2013/34 and the determination of the purpose and 
function of the accounting documents concerned have an impact on the burden of 
proof which lies with the applicant, that is to say, on the substance of the case. 
Therefore, the prerequisite for making a reference for a preliminary ruling, namely 
that the question be relevant, is satisfied. Moreover, although the Court of Justice 
has examined, in a number of cases, the content of the principles of legal certainty 
and the right to a fair trial and their application, it has not yet given a ruling on 
this matter in the light of the approach taken in the questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling which are the subject matter of this case.  
15 The referring court also notes that the inconsistencies between the national 
administrative practice and the national case-law also justify making a reference 
for a preliminary ruling. According to the case-law of the Kúria (Supreme Court), 
the documents covered by Directive 2013/34, including the simplified annual 
accounts, do not in themselves prove, in the absence of supporting documents on 
which the accounts are based, that the employee has correctly accounted for a 
given amount.  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-279/22  
 
6  
16 In that regard, the referring court wonders whether, assuming that the annual 
accounts give a true and fair view of the company’s assets and liabilities, financial 
position and profits and losses, those accounts may be regarded as reliable 
evidence in themselves or whether there is a presumption that they are authentic 
which, where appropriate, must be rebutted by the party challenging them.