CELEX: 62016CN0375
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin

24.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 392/6
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
   (Case C-375/16)
   (2016/C 392/07)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesfinanzhof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach
   
      Defendant: Igor Butin
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax of 28 November 2006 (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) require the taxable person to indicate an address at which he carries on his economic activities?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
               
                           a)
                        
                        
                           Is a letterbox address sufficient as an indication of address pursuant to Article 226(5) of the VAT Directive?
                        
                     
                           b)
                        
                        
                           Which address must a taxable person who operates an undertaking (in the Internet trade, for example) with no business premises indicate on an invoice?
                        
                     
         
               3.
            
            
               In the event that the formal invoicing requirements laid down in Article 226 of the VAT Directive are not met, must the taxable person automatically be allowed to deduct input tax where no tax evasion has been committed or the taxable person did not know, and could not have known, of the connection with fraud or, in that event, does the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations presuppose that the taxable person has done everything that could reasonably be required of him in order to verify the accuracy of the content of the invoice?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.