Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:588
Date: 2019-07-10
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 April 2018 — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’ (Case C-273/18) Language of the case: Latvian Referring court Augstākā tiesa Parties to the main proceedings Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’ Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests Question referred Must Article 168(a) of Directive 2006/112/EC 1 be interpreted as precluding a refusal of the deduction of input value added tax (VAT) where the refusal is based solely on the fact that the taxpayer is knowingly involved in the arrangement of sham transactions, but it is not indicated how the outcome of those specific transactions is detrimental to the Treasury because of failure to pay VAT or an unjustified claim for repayment of VAT, as compared with the situation that would have obtained had the transactions been arranged to reflect the actual circumstances? ____________ 1 Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).