Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 — Itales

(Case C‑123/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Refusal on the ground that the supplies of goods had not actually been carried out, as a result of fraud and irregularities — Unlawful — Limits — Conditions — Addressee of the invoice who knew or should have known of the fraud — Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 14(1), 167 and 168(a)) (see paras 35-42, operative part)

Operative part

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, concerning the right to deduct value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of a Member State from considering that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the consequence that the purchaser is prevented from deducting the value added tax incurred at the time of the purchase, on the ground that the purchaser has not proved either the origin of the goods concerned or that his supplier was in possession of those goods, where that authority has not established that the purchaser was involved in value added tax evasion and knew or ought to have known that the transaction at issue was connected with such evasion.

( 1 ) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2015 — Itales

(Case C‑123/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of tax neutrality — Deduction of input VAT — Meaning of ‘supply of goods’ — Conditions for establishing a supply of goods — No proof that the direct supplier was actually in possession of the goods’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 99) (see paras 26, 27)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Refusal on the ground that the supplies of goods had not actually been carried out, as a result of fraud and irregularities — Unlawful — Limits — Conditions — Addressee of the invoice who knew or should have known of the fraud — Verification a matter for the national court (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 14(1), 167 and 168(a)) (see paras 35-42, operative part)

Operative part

The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, concerning the right to deduct value added tax, must be interpreted as precluding a tax authority of a Member State from considering that a supply of goods has not taken place, with the consequence that the purchaser is prevented from deducting the value added tax incurred at the time of the purchase, on the ground that the purchaser has not proved either the origin of the goods concerned or that his supplier was in possession of those goods, where that authority has not established that the purchaser was involved in value added tax evasion and knew or ought to have known that the transaction at issue was connected with such evasion.

( 1 ) OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.