In the Latvian case of Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (CJEU Case C-525/11) the CJEU held that article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as not authorising the tax authority of a Member State to defer without undertaking a specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation the refund of part of the excess VAT which has arisen during a one-month tax period pending the examination by that authority of the taxable person’s annual tax return’.
Why it matters: Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that ‘where for a given tax period the amount of deductions exceeds the amount of VAT due the Member States may in accordance with conditions which they shall determine either make a refund or carry the excess forward to the following period’. The CJEU held that this did not...
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 the Latvian case of Mednis SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (CJEU Case C-525/11) the CJEU held that article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as not authorising the tax authority of a Member State to defer without undertaking a specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation the refund of part of the excess VAT which has arisen during a one-month tax period pending the examination by that authority of the taxable person’s annual tax return’.
Why it matters: Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC provides that ‘where for a given tax period the amount of deductions exceeds the amount of VAT due the Member States may in accordance with conditions which they shall determine either make a refund or carry the excess forward to the following period’. The CJEU held that this did not...
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:
