Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Jagiello

(Case C‑33/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Invoice issued by a company acting as a front’

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 77/388, Arts 17(2)(a), and 22(3)(b)) (see paras 27, 32, 33, 36-43, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 5(1), and of Article 17(2)(a) of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal to allow a recipient of supplies to deduct VAT in the case where the vendor uses the corporate name of another person — Intentional non-disclosure of the vendor’s own activity — Invoice issued by a person other than the vendor — No need to establish that the purchaser was aware of the fact that the transaction in question was linked to criminal activity or to some other irregularity committed by the vendor or by the body cooperating with it.

Operative part

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 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT due or paid in respect of goods supplied to him on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice for that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually been made by the issuer, unless it is established, on the basis of objective evidence and without requiring of the taxable person checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that supply was connected with VAT fraud — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Jagiello

(Case C‑33/13)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Right of deduction — Refusal — Invoice issued by a company acting as a front’

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 77/388, Arts 17(2)(a), and 22(3)(b)) (see paras 27, 32, 33, 36-43, operative part)

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Łodzi — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2), read in conjunction with Article 5(1), and of Article 17(2)(a) of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input VAT — Refusal to allow a recipient of supplies to deduct VAT in the case where the vendor uses the corporate name of another person — Intentional non-disclosure of the vendor’s own activity — Invoice issued by a person other than the vendor — No need to establish that the purchaser was aware of the fact that the transaction in question was linked to criminal activity or to some other irregularity committed by the vendor or by the body cooperating with it.

Operative part

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 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT due or paid in respect of goods supplied to him on the ground that, in view of fraud or irregularities committed by the issuer of the invoice for that supply, the supply is considered not to have actually been made by the issuer, unless it is established, on the basis of objective evidence and without requiring of the taxable person checks which are not his responsibility, that that taxable person knew, or should have known, that that supply was connected with VAT fraud — a matter which it is for the referring court to determine.