Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:964
Date: 2020-11-26
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Sweden

Translation C-787/18 - 1 
Case C-787/18 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
17 December 2018 
Referring court: 
Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 December 2018 
Appellant: 
Skatteverket 
Respondent: 
Sögård Fastigheter AB 
      
HÖGSTA FÖRVALTNINGSDOMSTOLEN [OMISSIS] 
APPELLANT 
Skatteverket 
[OMISSIS] Solna 
RESPONDENT 
Sögård Fastigheter AB, [OMISSIS] Fredriksberg 
[OMISSIS] 
MATTER 
Value added tax; obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the 
European Union 
[OMISSIS] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3.12.2018 – CASE C‑ 787/18 
 
2  
The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) 
makes the following 
Order 
A preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU shall be sought from the 
Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the reference for 
such a ruling annexed hereto [OMISSIS]. 
[OMISSIS] [Or. 2]  
Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU concerning the 
interpretation of Articles 19, 188 and 189 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 
28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (the VAT 
Directive). 
Introduction 
1 The Court of Justice held in the case of Pactor Vastgoed (C-622/11, 
EU:C:2013:649) that the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC precludes the recovery of 
amounts due following the adjustment 1 of a VAT deduction from a taxable 
person other than the person who applied that deduction. Pactor Vastgoed BV, 
which was the purchaser of a property, could not be required to pay a sum due on 
the ground that the seller had deducted tax at the time when the seller owned the 
property. It is apparent from the judgment that Pactor Vastgoed did not intend to 
use the property for transactions which carried a right of deduction. 
2 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns whether the Court’s statement in 
the Pactor Vastgoed case also covers also a situation where a buyer (A), 
immediately after the purchase, uses the property exclusively for transactions 
giving rise to a right of deduction, but subsequently sells the property to a person 
(B) who does not intend to use it for such transactions. Sweden has introduced 
rules, on the basis of Article 188(2) of the VAT Directive, whereby the original 
seller of the immovable property (C) is not required, at the time of its sale to A, to 
adjust the deduction which C has made during its period of ownership, provided 
that A, after the purchase, uses the property exclusively for transactions giving 
rise to a right of deduction. The question is whether it is compatible with the 
directive that A, in such a situation, [Or. 3] becomes liable, at the time of the sale 
to B, to pay an amount to adjust the deduction earlier made by C. 
 
1 In the Sixth Directive and in the Swedish translation of the judgment of the Court of Justice, the 
term used is ‘jämkning’ [‘adjustment’ or ‘modification’ in English]. In the VAT Directive that 
term has been replaced by ‘justering’ [‘adjustment’ in English]. The term adjustment is used 
consistently in this document. 
SKATTEVERKET 
 
3 
Relevant provisions of EU law 
3 Provisions corresponding to those of the Sixth Directive which were interpreted in 
the Pactor Vastgoed case have been included in the VAT Directive. Those articles 
and the other articles of the VAT Directive which are relevant to the present 
proceedings are described below. The corresponding articles of the Sixth 
Directive are given in brackets. 
Provisions on obligatory and voluntary tax liability  
4 Under Article 135(1)(j) and 135(1)(l) (Article 13B(g) and 13B(b)), the supply of 
certain buildings and the land on which they stand, as well as the letting of 
immovable property, are to be exempt from VAT. Member States may, in 
accordance with Article 137(1)(b) and 137(1)(d) (Article 13C), allow taxable 
persons a right of option for taxation for such supply and letting. In accordance 
with Article 137(2) (Article 13C), the Member States are to lay down the detailed 
rules governing exercise of the right of option and may restrict the scope of that 
right. 
Provisions on deductions and adjustment of deductions 
5 Article 168(a) (Article 17(2)(a), in its wording in accordance with Article 28(f)) 
shows that taxable persons are entitled to deduct VAT for which they are liable  in 
respect of goods or services supplied by another taxable person, in so far as the 
goods and services are used for the taxable person’s taxed transactions. 
6 The initial deduction is to be adjusted in accordance with Article 184 (Article 
20(1)(a)) where it is higher or lower than that to which the taxable person was 
entitled. Article 185 (Article 20(1)(b)) lists situations in which the obligation to 
adjust exists or, by contrast, is limited. [Or. 4] 
7 Articles 187 to 189 contain special provisions on the adjustment of deductions in 
the case of capital goods. 
8 Under Article 187(1) (Article 20(2)), in the case of capital goods, adjustment is to 
be spread over five years including that in which the goods were acquired or 
manufactured. In the case of immovable property, the period used as a basis for 
the calculation of the adjustment may be extended to a maximum of 20 years. 
9 The annual adjustment is, in accordance with Article 187(2) (Article 20(2)), to be 
made only in respect of one-fifth of the VAT charged on the capital goods, or, if 
the adjustment period has been extended, in respect of the corresponding fraction 
thereof. The adjustment is to be made on the basis of the variations in the 
deduction entitlement in subsequent years in relation to that for the year in which 
the goods were acquired, manufactured or, where applicable, used for the first 
time. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3.12.2018 – CASE C‑ 787/18 
 
4  
10 Article 188(1) (Article 20(3)) states that, if supplied during the adjustment period, 
capital goods are to be treated as if they had been continuously applied to an 
economic activity of the taxable person until expiry of the adjustment period. The 
economic activity is to be presumed to be fully taxed in cases where the supply of 
the capital goods is taxed. The economic activity is to be presumed to be fully 
exempt in cases where the supply of the capital goods is exempt. 
11 Under Article 188(2) (Article 20(3)), the adjustment is made under Article 188(1) 
only once for the whole period of adjustment still to run. However, where the 
supply of capital goods is exempt, Member States may waive the requirement for 
adjustment in so far as the purchaser is a taxable person using the capital goods in 
question solely for transactions in respect of which VAT is deductible. [Or. 5] 
12 Article 189 (Article 20(4)) states that, for the purpose of applying Articles 187 and 
188, Member States may define the concept of capital goods and specify the 
amount of the tax which is to be taken into consideration for adjustment and may 
take the appropriate measures to ensure that the adjustment does not give rise to 
any unjustified advantage and does permit administrative simplifications. 
Provisions on the transfer of businesses 
13 In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 19 (Article 5(8)), in the event of a 
transfer, whether for consideration or not or as a contribution to a company, of a 
totality of assets or part thereof, Member States may consider that no supply of 
goods has taken place and that the person to whom the goods are transferred is to 
be treated as the successor to the transferor. 
14 The second paragraph of Article 19 (Article 5(8)) specifies that Member States, in 
cases where the recipient is not wholly liable to tax, may take the measures 
necessary to prevent distortion of competition. They may also adopt any measures 
needed to prevent tax evasion or avoidance through the use of that article. 
Relevant provisions of national law 
Provisions on obligatory and voluntary tax liability 
15 Provisions on obligatory and voluntary tax liability on transactions relating to 
immovable property and the letting thereof are contained in Chapters 3 and 9 of 
the mervärdesskattelagen (1994:200) (Law on value added tax (1994: 200); ‘the 
ML’). 
16 With certain limitations, transactions relating to immovable property and the 
transfer of tenancy rights relating to immovable property are exempt from tax 
pursuant to Chapter 3, Paragraph 2, of the ML. A proprietor of a building who, 
permanently and for use in an activity that entails tax liability, lets all or part of a 
building which constitutes immovable property may, however, opt to be taxed on 
SKATTEVERKET 
 
5 
that letting (voluntary tax liability). This is clear from Chapter 3, Paragraph 3 and 
Chapter 9, Paragraph 1 of the ML. [Or. 6] 
17 If a property owner who has opted to be taxable in respect of a letting transfers the 
property, the voluntary tax liability passes, under Chapter 9, Paragraph 5, of the 
ML, with effect from the date of entry into possession, to the new owner. Under 
that provision, the new owner takes over the previous owner's position as regards 
the rights and obligations under the Law. Chapter 9, Paragraph 6, in the version 
applicable to the main proceedings, provides, however, that the Skatteverket is to 
rule that voluntary tax liability in respect of a letting is to cease upon the entry into 
possession if the previous and the new owner jointly apply, before the date of 
entry into possession, for that to be the case. 
18 Under Chapter 9, Paragraph 6, the voluntary tax liability ceases, moreover, when 
the property owner changes the use of the property to purposes other than taxable 
leasing, or when the property can no longer be leased due to fire or other reasons 
which are beyond the control of the owner, or because of demolition. 
Provisions on deductions and adjustment of deductions 
19 The provisions on the deduction of input tax are found in Chapter 8 of the ML and 
those on the adjustment 2 of deductions are set out in Chapter 8a. 
20 Entities engaged in an activity which entails tax liability may, pursuant to Chapter 
8, Paragraph 3, deduct the input tax related to acquisitions made as part of the 
activity. 
21 Chapter 8 a, Paragraph 4, states that adjustment of deductions, as a general rule, is 
to be made where 
• the use of capital goods the acquisition of which carries in whole or in part 
the right to deduct input tax is changed in such a way that the right to deduct 
is decreased, 
• the use of capital goods the acquisition of which does not carry the right to 
deduct input tax, or only in part, is changed in such a way that the right to 
deduct is increased, or [Or. 7] 
• a property is transferred subject to the deduction of input tax on the costs of 
construction, extension or conversion referred to in Chapter 8 a, Paragraph 
2. 
 
2 The ML uses the term ‘jämkning’, but as is clear from footnote  1, this document uses the term 
‘justering’ throughout. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3.12.2018 – CASE C‑ 787/18 
 
6  
22 Capital goods referred to in Chapter 8 a, Paragraph 2, include immovable property 
which has been newly constructed, extended or rebuilt, if the input tax on the cost 
of that work amounts to at least SEK 100 000. 
23 Deduction of the input tax is adjusted, in accordance with Chapter 8 a, Paragraph 
6, only when the use of capital goods has changed or a transfer takes place within 
a certain time (correction period). That period is ten years in respect of immovable 
property. 
24 Where there is a transfer of capital goods, the deduction made in respect of input 
tax is to be adjusted on one single occasion. When calculating the amount of that 
adjustment, the deduction to be adjusted is to be spread over the total correction 
period, after which the adjustment is to be made on the amount which is 
attributable to the remainder of the correction period. That is clear from Chapter 8 
a, Paragraphs 7 and 8. 
25 Chapter 8 a, Paragraphs 11 and 12, contain provisions to the effect that a taxable 
purchaser of capital goods in certain circumstances is to be subrogated to the 
transferor’s right and obligation to adjust deductions of input tax. That is the case, 
under Paragraph 11, of, inter alia, the transfer of capital goods in the context of a 
transfer of activity. Paragraph 12 states that it also applies if the property that is 
leased out with voluntary tax liability is transferred, but only provided that the 
transferor and the transferee have not agreed that the transferor will make an 
adjustment and that the adjustment is not justified by changes that occurred during 
the transferor’s ownership. 
26 On a transfer of capital goods which entails the transferee being subrogated to the 
transferor’s right and obligation to adjust deductions of input tax, the transferor is, 
pursuant to Chapter 8 a, Paragraphs 15 and 17, to issue a separate document. The 
document must contain details, inter alia, of the input tax which relates to the 
transferor's acquisition of the capital goods or the construction, extension or 
conversion of immovable property, the part of that tax in respect of which, after 
any adjustment, the transferor [Or. 8] applied a deduction, the time at which the 
acquisition and the deduction were made and any other information relevant to the 
determination of tax liability and the transferee's right of deduction. 
27 Chapter 8a, Paragraph 16, states that, if the transferor holds a document issued in 
accordance with Chapter 8 a, Paragraph 15, by a previous owner of the capital 
goods and that document contains information relevant to the transferee’s right 
and obligation to adjust, a copy of the document is to be provided to the 
transferee. 
Provisions on the transfer of a business 
28 Until 2016, the Swedish provision on the transfer of a business formed part of  
Chapter 3, Paragraph 25, and was expressed as an exemption from taxation. That 
provision stated that the turnover of assets in the business must be tax exempt 
SKATTEVERKET 
 
7 
where such an asset is transferred when the business is transferred, on condition 
that the transferee is entitled to make deductions in respect of or entitled to a 
refund of the tax. 
29 The provision on transfer of a business in Article 19 of the VAT Directive is 
worded in such a way that such transfers are not deemed to constitute a supply. 
The Swedish provision in Chapter 3, Paragraph 25, of the ML has, in practice, 
been interpreted in conformity with EU law in accordance with the directive, that 
is to say, in such a way that a transfer of a business had been held not to constitute 
any turnover for VAT purposes (see Case HFD 2014 ref.  1). 
30 That provision has now been replaced by Chapter 2, Paragraph 1 b, which has 
been drafted in line with the directive. It therefore states that a transfer of the 
assets in a business which takes place in connection with the transfer of the 
business is not deemed to be turnover, provided that the transferee would be 
entitled to deduction or refund of the tax which would otherwise be levied on the 
transfer. [Or. 9] 
The facts of the case 
31 The case concerns a company limited by shares, Sögård Fastigheter AB, which 
was voluntarily liable for tax on the letting of a property which it had acquired in 
2012. The previous owner had also been voluntarily liable for tax and, during its 
ownership, had deducted input tax on the cost of rebuilding the property. The 
previous owner issued a document containing information on the input tax in 
respect of the conversion work. The parties did not enter into any agreement that 
the previous owner would adjust the deduction of input tax. Nor did they apply to 
the Skatteverket for the voluntary tax liability not to be transferred. The company 
continued to let the property on the basis of tax liability. Accordingly, the 
previous owner did not adjust the deducted input tax at the time of the transfer. 
32 In 2013, the company sold the property to private individuals, and the voluntary 
tax liability was terminated at that time. The Skatteverket decided that the 
company should adjust the previous owner's, deduction of input tax and pay the 
amount relating to the remainder of the correction period. 
33 The company was of the view that the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pactor 
Vastgoed meant that it was not required to repay the VAT which had been 
deducted by the previous owner and appealed against that decision to the 
förvaltningsrätten (Administrative Court, Sweden). 
34 The förvaltningsrätten (Administrative Court) agreed with the Skatteverket’s 
assessment that Pactor Vastgoed concerned a situation different from that 
examined in the present proceedings and dismissed the appeal. The 
förvaltningsrätten (Administrative Court) took the view that, by continuing the 
leases on a taxable basis, the company had taken the place of the previous owner 
as regards the rights and obligations under the ML. In the view of the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3.12.2018 – CASE C‑ 787/18 
 
8  
förvaltningsrätten (Administrative Court), the company was thus deemed to be the 
taxable person who should pay the amount resulting from the adjustment of the 
initial deduction. [Or. 10] 
35 The company then appealed to the kammarrätten (Administrative Court of 
Appeal, Sweden), which granted the appeal and declared that the company was 
not liable to repay, by an adjustment, deductions of input tax previously made. 
The kammarrätten (Administrative Court of Appeal) found that it follows from the 
judgment in Pactor Vastgoed that the obligation to adjust cannot be imposed on 
any taxable person other than the taxable person who applied the deduction. 
36 During the proceedings, the Skatteverket argued that adjustment can also be made 
on the ground that there is a transfer of a business and that the company has 
thereby taken over the previous owner’s position. The kammarrätten 
(Administrative Court of Appeal) took the view, however, that the ruling of the 
Court of Justice was so clear and general in nature that it was irrelevant whether 
there had been a transfer of a business or a mere acquisition of immovable 
property. 
37 The Skatteverket has appealed against the judgment of the kammarrätten 
(Administrative Court of Appeal) and has claimed that the Högsta 
förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) should reverse 
the judgment and find that the company is liable to repay, by an adjustment, 
deductions of input tax previously made by the previous owner. The company 
contends that the appeal should be dismissed. 
Positions of the parties 
Skatteverket 
38 The findings of the Court of Justice in Pactor Vastgoed should be considered 
against the background of the facts of the case. That judgment concerns a situation 
where the buyer was not to use the purchased property for taxable transactions and 
the obligation to adjust thereby arose when the transferor sold the property. The 
obligation to adjust the deduction should therefore not have been transferred to the 
purchaser. The present case concerns a different situation. Sögård Fastigheter took 
over the voluntary tax liability and continued to use the property for taxable 
transactions. The company also took over the previous owner’s rights and 
obligations as regards, inter alia, adjustment. When the company then transferred 
the property to persons who would not use the property for taxable transactions, 
the obligation to adjust was triggered. [Or. 11] 
39 The Swedish rules on the transfer of the right and obligation to adjust seeks to 
maintain the continuity of the VAT system. The cost effect of the transfer of 
immovable property which VAT would have had without such rules is eliminated. 
If the rules had not existed and the seller were forced to made an adjustment at the 
SKATTEVERKET 
 
9 
time of the transfer, the price of the property would include hidden VAT which 
the buyer cannot deduct despite the fact that the buyer intends to use the property 
entirely in an activity subject to VAT. The rules are thus appropriate and give rise 
to a substantively correct result through the fact that the deduction in respect of 
capital goods follows from the use of the goods in taxable activity. 
40 The rules presuppose, however, that both the right and the obligation to adjust are 
transferred. Where a taxable person transfers a property, during the adjustment 
period, to a buyer who carries out an activity giving rise to a right of deduction 
and the Member State, on the basis of Article 188 of the VAT Directive, refrains 
from requiring adjustment, an unjustified advantage for the buyer is created if he 
later, during the adjustment period, changes the use so that the property is no 
longer used in activities which give rise to a right of deduction. In such a case, the 
purchaser has acquired the property at a price which does not contain any VAT 
cost. 
41 In order to avoid the need to adjust, the seller must provide information on the 
input tax, etc., in a document which is to be provided to the purchaser at the time 
of the sale. That means that the purchaser, when purchasing, is aware of how 
much he may be required to repay if the conditions for tax liability are 
subsequently amended. The purchaser may also agree with the seller, where the 
letting of the building is subject to voluntary tax liability, that the seller is to make 
the adjustment. 
42 If the Swedish provisions on the taking over of the obligation to adjust on the 
transfer of immovable property were to be regarded as incompatible with EU law, 
an adjustment must nevertheless be made on the ground that, in the present case, 
there was a transfer of a business. The findings made by the Court of Justice in 
Pactor Vastgoed cannot be regarded as [Or. 12] preventing the obligation to adjust 
from being passed to the purchaser on such a transfer. 
Sögård Fastigheter 
43 The Swedish provisions run counter to the provisions of EU law as interpreted by 
the Court of Justice in Pactor Vastgoed. In that judgment, the Court of Justice has 
clearly and unequivocally held that the obligation to adjust deductions of input tax 
cannot be imposed on any person other than the taxable person who applied that 
deduction. 
44 If the obligation to adjust can be passed to a new owner and he cannot then pass 
this obligation further, or change the use of the capital goods during his ownership 
so that the tax liability is reduced, the obligation to adjust gives rise to an actual 
cost which does not correspond to one of the deductions previously made. The 
previous owner, however, makes a tax saving by being able keep the tax deducted 
despite the fact that, during the adjustment period, the capital goods are used in 
the new owner's tax exempt activities. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3.12.2018 – CASE C‑ 787/18 
 
10  
45 The finding of the Court of Justice is general and thus also applies if the property 
must be regarded as having been acquired in connection with a transfer of a 
business. 
The need for a preliminary ruling 
46 The scope which the findings of the Court of Justice in Pactor Vastgoed have is 
crucial to the case before the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme 
Administrative Court). 
47 In that judgment, the Court of Justice found that the Sixth Directive contains no 
express indication concerning the taxable person liable for tax debts resulting 
from the adjustment of a VAT deduction (paragraph 30). In the view of the Court, 
however, it cannot be inferred from that fact that the Member States are, in the 
context of the details or procedures which they are to determine under the second 
subparagraph of Article 13C and Article 20(1) of that directive (corresponding to 
Articles 137(2) and 184 to 186 of the VAT Directive), free to decide [Or. 13] 
which taxpayer must pay the VAT in such a context (paragraph 31). The answer 
given by the Court of Justice to the question referred was that the Sixth Directive 
precludes the recovery of amounts due following the adjustment of a VAT 
deduction from a taxable person other than the person who applied that deduction 
(paragraph 47). 
48 The Swedish rules on the transfer of the obligation to adjust were adopted on the 
basis of Articles 188 and 189 of the VAT Directive. Transfers of immovable 
property are exempt from tax under Swedish law, without the property owner 
having any right voluntarily to become liable for tax in respect of the transfer. 
Under Article 188(2), Member States may, where a supply of capital goods is 
exempt, waive the requirement for adjustment in so far as the purchaser is a 
taxable person using those capital goods solely for transactions in respect of which 
VAT is deductible. Member States may also, under Article 189, adopt appropriate 
measures  
 
to ensure that adjustment does not give rise to any unjustified advantage and may 
permit administrative simplifications. 
49 Unlike the case in Pactor Vastgoed, in the present case the purchaser, Sögård 
Fastigheter, would, immediately after the transfer, use the property exclusively for 
transactions giving rise to a right of deduction. The property was let on the basis 
of voluntary tax liability by the seller and the buyer would also continue the 
letting after the transfer. Applying the rules introduced into Swedish law on the 
basis of Article 188(2) of the VAT Directive, the seller refrained from adjusting 
deductions which he had made during his ownership. 
50 In that case, since the parties had not agreed that the seller would make any 
adjustment, under Chapter 8 a, Paragraph 12, of the ML, the obligation to do so 
passed to Sögård Fastigheter. In accordance with the Swedish rules, the company 
SKATTEVERKET 
 
11 
is thus required, when selling the property on, to adjust the tax deducted by the 
seller. The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court) seeks, 
by the present reference for a preliminary ruling, clarification as to whether it is 
compatible with Articles 188 and 189 of the VAT Directive that such a 
requirement for adjustment be imposed on the company. [Or. 14] 
51 If the Court of Justice were to hold that it is incompatible with the directive to 
allow the obligation to adjust to pass to the buyer in the manner described in 
paragraphs 49 and 50, the Skatteverket’s alternative plea that Sögård Fastigheter’s 
purchase of the property should be regarded as a transfer of a business and that it 
follows therefrom that the purchaser must make the adjustment becomes relevant. 
52 The question of whether the provisions on transfer of a business are applicable to 
the transfer at issue depends on the facts of the case and is not covered by the 
present request for a preliminary ruling. The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen 
(Supreme Administrative Court) will, should it become necessary, take a position 
on that issue when the court makes its final ruling in the case. If the Högsta 
förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court) should  conclude that the 
transfer constitutes a transfer of a business, the question then arises, however, 
whether it is compatible with Article 19 of the VAT Directive to require Sögård 
Fastigheter, at the time of such a transfer, to adjust the previous owner’s deduction 
of input tax. 
53 The Advocate General took the view in Pactor Vastgoed (EU:C:2013:345, point 
93) that Article 5(8) of the Sixth Directive, which corresponds to Article 19 of the 
VAT Directive, expressly makes it permissible to require payment of the adjusted 
VAT from a taxable person other than the person who made the tax deduction. In 
its judgment, the Court of Justice did not touch upon that question. In its judgment 
in the present case, however, the Kammarrätten (Administrative Court of Appeal) 
has taken the view that the finding of the Court of Justice - that the Council's Sixth 
Directive precludes an amount due as a result of adjustment of a deduction of 
VAT being recovered from a person other than the taxable person who made the 
deduction - is so general that it applies also to transfers of assets referred to in 
Article 19. The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court) is 
therefore of the view that it would also be useful to have a ruling from the Court 
of Justice as regards the interpretation of Article 19 as it applies to the present 
situation. [Or. 15] 
Questions 
54 The Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court) requests, 
having regard to the background set out above, answers to the following 
questions. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 3.12.2018 – CASE C‑ 787/18 
 
12  
Question 1 
55 If a seller of a property, on the basis of the rules introduced by the Member State 
in accordance with Article 188(2) of the VAT Directive, has not adjusted a 
deduction of input tax because the purchaser intends to use the property 
exclusively for transactions giving rise to a right of deduction, does that then 
preclude, in a case where the adjustment period continues to run, the purchaser 
being required to adjust the deduction at a subsequent time when the purchaser in 
turn transfers the property to someone who does not intend to use the property for 
such transactions? 
Question 2 
56 Does it alter the answer to the first question if the first transfer referred to in that 
question constitutes a transfer of assets as referred to in Article 19 of the VAT 
Directive?