Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:690
Date: 2016-09-15
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Portugal

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 15 September 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of the questions (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Obligations of persons liable for the tax — Invoicing — Content of the invoice — Details required — Extent and nature of the services rendered — Date of the supply of services (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 226(6) and (7)) 3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Obligations of the taxable person — Holding of an invoice containing certain details — Invoice not complying with the requirements of Article 226(6) and (7) of Directive 2006/112 — Refusal of the right of deduction despite the availability of all the necessary information for ascertaining whether the substantive conditions for the exercise of the right are satisfied — Not permissible (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 178(a), 219 and 226(6) and (7)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 23, 24) 2. Article 226 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered from [a date] until the present date’ do not a priori comply with the requirements of point 6 of that article and that invoices mentioning only ‘legal services rendered until the present date’ do not a priori comply either with the requirements of point 6 or with those of point 7 of that article, which is, however, for the referring tribunal to ascertain. The objective of the details which must be shown in an invoice is to allow the tax authorities to monitor payment of the tax due and, if appropriate, the existence of the right to deduct value added tax. It is therefore in the light of that objective that it should be examined whether invoices comply with the requirements of Article 226(6) of Directive 2006/112. Thus, as regards the requirement to state the extent and nature of the services rendered, the expression ‘legal services’ does not appear to indicate in sufficient detail the nature of the services concerned. Moreover, that description is so general that it does not appear to disclose the extent of the services rendered. Consequently, the description does not a priori satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(6) of Directive 2006/112. As regards the requirement to show the date on which the supply of services was made or completed, that requirement makes it possible to check when the chargeable event for tax occurs, and hence to determine the tax provisions which must apply, from a temporal point of view, to the transaction to which that document relates. Consequently, an invoice referring only to ‘legal services rendered until the present date’, without specifying any starting date of the period of account, does not satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(7) of Directive 2006/112. (see paras 27-30, 33, 35, operative part) 3. Article 178(a) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the national tax authorities from refusing the right to deduct value added tax (VAT) solely because the taxable person holds an invoice which does not satisfy the conditions required by Article 226(6) and (7) of that directive, even though those authorities have available all the necessary information for ascertaining whether the substantive conditions for the exercise of that right are satisfied. The fundamental principle of the neutrality of VAT requires deduction of input VAT to be allowed if the substantive requirements are satisfied, even if the taxable persons have failed to comply with some formal conditions. Consequently, where the tax authorities have the information necessary to establish that the substantive requirements have been satisfied, they cannot, in relation to the right of the taxable person to deduct that tax, impose additional conditions which may have the effect of rendering that right ineffective for practical purposes. In this respect, the tax authorities cannot restrict themselves to examining the invoice itself. They must also take account of the additional information provided by the taxable person. That conclusion is confirmed by Article 219 of Directive 2006/112, which treats as an invoice any document or message that amends and refers specifically and unambiguously to the initial invoice. (see paras 42, 44, 49, operative part)