CELEX: 62018CA0273
Language: en
Date: 2019-07-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-273/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct input VAT — Article 168 — Goods supply chain — Refusal of the right to deduct on account of that chain’s existence — Obligation on the competent tax authority to establish the existence of an abusive practice)

9.9.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 305/20
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
      (Case C-273/18) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct input VAT - Article 168 - Goods supply chain - Refusal of the right to deduct on account of that chain’s existence - Obligation on the competent tax authority to establish the existence of an abusive practice)
      (2019/C 305/24)
      Language of the case: Latvian
      
         Referring court
      
      Augstākā tiesa
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: SIA ‘Kuršu zeme’
      
         Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/45/EU of 13 July 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of refusing the right to deduct input value added tax (VAT), the fact that an acquisition of goods took place at the end of a chain of successive sale transactions between several persons and that the taxable person acquired possession of the goods concerned in the warehouse of a person forming part of that chain, other than the person mentioned as supplier on the invoice, is not in itself sufficient to find the existence of an abusive practice on the part of the taxable person or the other persons participating in that chain, the competent tax authority being required to establish the existence of an undue tax advantage obtained by that taxable person or those other persons.
      
         (1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.