The principles laid down in Kittel v Belgian State CJEU Case C-439/04 [2008] STC 1537 were applied in the Bulgarian case of Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ – Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (CJEU Case C-285/11) where the CJEU held that ‘a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT in relation to a supply of goods on the ground that in view of fraud or irregularities committed upstream or downstream of that supply the supply is considered not to have actually taken place where it has not been established on the basis of objective evidence that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on as a basis for...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.
Home >Articles > Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ – Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ – Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
The principles laid down in Kittel v Belgian State CJEU Case C-439/04 [2008] STC 1537 were applied in the Bulgarian case of Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ – Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (CJEU Case C-285/11) where the CJEU held that ‘a taxable person may not be refused the right to deduct VAT in relation to a supply of goods on the ground that in view of fraud or irregularities committed upstream or downstream of that supply the supply is considered not to have actually taken place where it has not been established on the basis of objective evidence that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on as a basis for...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
