CELEX: 62015CB0446
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-446/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right of deduction — Refusal — Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services — Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks)

27.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/5
            
         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság
   (Case C-446/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction - Refusal - Issuer of the invoice considered not to have been the real supplier of the invoiced services - Obligation on the taxable person to carry out checks))
   (2017/C 063/07)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Signum Alfa Sped Kft.
   
      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   The provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a national practice under which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct value added tax which is payable or paid in respect of services supplied to it on the ground that the invoices relating to those services lack verisimilitude since the issuer of those invoices could not be the real supplier of those services, unless it is established, in the light of objective factors and without the taxable person being required to carry out checks not required of it, that that taxable person knew or should have known that those services were involved in value added tax fraud, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.
   
      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.