In Finanzamt Dachau v A. Kollroß (Case C‑660/16) and Finanzamt Göppingen v E. Wirtl (Case C‑661/16) (31 May 2018) the CJEU ruled that under the Principal VAT Directive arts 65 67 185 and 186 a trader is entitled to deduct VAT paid in relation to a deposit in circumstances where the supply never takes place and a refund by the supplier is not possible as he has become insolvent.
Mr Kollroß had ordered a combined heat and power unit from GA which had issued a deposit invoice. Mr Kollroß had paid the deposit. The unit was never delivered and GA became insolvent. Employees of GA were convicted for fraudulent trading practices. Mr Kollroß applied for the input tax relating to the payment he had made on account to be deducted. The Dachau Tax Office turned down his application.
Similarly Mr Wirtl had ordered a...
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:
In Finanzamt Dachau v A. Kollroß (Case C‑660/16) and Finanzamt Göppingen v E. Wirtl (Case C‑661/16) (31 May 2018) the CJEU ruled that under the Principal VAT Directive arts 65 67 185 and 186 a trader is entitled to deduct VAT paid in relation to a deposit in circumstances where the supply never takes place and a refund by the supplier is not possible as he has become insolvent.
Mr Kollroß had ordered a combined heat and power unit from GA which had issued a deposit invoice. Mr Kollroß had paid the deposit. The unit was never delivered and GA became insolvent. Employees of GA were convicted for fraudulent trading practices. Mr Kollroß applied for the input tax relating to the payment he had made on account to be deducted. The Dachau Tax Office turned down his application.
Similarly Mr Wirtl had ordered a...
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:
