CELEX: 62019CB0611
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-611/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Crewprint Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality — Right to VAT deduction — Refusal — Fraud — Proof — Chain of subcontractors)

30.11.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 414/18
            
         
      Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Crewprint Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      (Case C-611/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality - Right to VAT deduction - Refusal - Fraud - Proof - Chain of subcontractors)
      (2020/C 414/22)
      Language of the case: Hungarian
      
         Referring court
      
      Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Crewprint Kft.
      
         Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
      
         Operative part of the order
      
      Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with the principles of fiscal neutrality, of effectiveness and of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice by which the tax authorities refuse a taxable person the right to deduct input value added tax on the ground that the conduct of that taxable person and of the issuer of the invoices amounts to fraud because, first, their contracts were not necessary for the performance of the economic transactions in question and could be legally classified other than how the parties did so, secondly, that issuer has had recourse, without it being necessary or economically rational, to a chain of subcontractors, some of which did not have the necessary personnel and material resources and, thirdly, that taxable person had personal or organisational links with that issuer as well as with one of those subcontractors. In order to provide a basis for such a refusal, it must be established, other than by assumptions based on pre-established criteria, that that same taxable person actively participated in fraud or that that taxable person knew or should have known that those transactions were connected with fraud committed by the issuer of the invoices, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
      
         (1)  OJ C 95, 23.3.2020