Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:501
Date: 2018-06-27
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 27 June 2018 1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct — Material conditions governing the right to deduct — Actual delivery of the goods — Good or bad faith of the taxable person relating to actual delivery — Irrelevant (Council Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 91/680, Arts 10(2) and 17(1)) 2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Origin and scope of the right to deduct — Refusal on the ground that the supply of goods had not actually been carried out — Lawfulness — Condition — Determination by the tax authorities of the actual failure to supply the goods (Council Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 91/680, Art. 17) 1. Article 17(1) of the Sixth Directive provides that the right to deduct arises at the time when the deductible tax becomes chargeable. This takes place, pursuant to Article 10(2) of that directive, when the goods are delivered or the services are performed. It follows that, in the VAT system, the right to deduct is connected to the actual delivery of the goods or performance of the services at issue (see, by analogy, order of the President of the Court of 4 July 2013, Menidzherski biznes reshenia, C‑572/11, not published, EU:C:2013:456, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). The good or bad faith of a taxable person seeking deduction of VAT has no bearing on the question whether there has been a delivery, for the purposes of Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive. In accordance with the objective of that directive, which aims to establish a common system of VAT based, inter alia, on a uniform definition of taxable transactions, the concept of ‘supply of goods’ in Article 5(1) of that directive is objective in nature and must be interpreted without regard to the purpose or results of the transactions concerned and without it being necessary for the tax authorities to carry out inquiries to determine the intention of the taxable person or for them to take account of the intention of an economic operator other than that taxable person involved in the same chain of supply (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 November 2013, Dixons Retail, C‑494/12, EU:C:2013:758, paragraphs 19 and 21 and the case-law cited). (see paras 34, 35, 38) 2. Article 17 of the 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, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to deny a taxable person in receipt of an invoice the right to deduct the VAT appearing on that invoice, it is sufficient that the authorities establish that the transactions covered by that invoice have not actually been carried out. (see para. 47, operative part)