In Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (CJEU Case C-80/11) the CJEU held that Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct from the value added tax which he is liable to pay the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services or one of his suppliers acted improperly without that authority establishing on the basis of objective evidence that the taxable person concerned knew or ought to have known that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by...
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 Mahagében kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (CJEU Case C-80/11) the CJEU held that Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby the tax authority refuses a taxable person the right to deduct from the value added tax which he is liable to pay the amount of the value added tax due or paid in respect of the services supplied to him on the ground that the issuer of the invoice relating to those services or one of his suppliers acted improperly without that authority establishing on the basis of objective evidence that the taxable person concerned knew or ought to have known that the transaction relied on as a basis for the right to deduct was connected with fraud committed by...
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:
