In RGEX GmbHc v Finanzamt Neuss (Case C‑374/16) and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v I Butin (Case C‑375/16) (5 July 2017) the CJEU confirmed that the fact that the address indicated on an invoice was a mere letterbox did not justify the denial of the right to deduct input tax.
RGEX sold cars out of Germany. It had purchased cars from EXTEL and the input tax deductions claimed on the basis of invoices issued by EXTEL had been refused because EXTEL was considered a ‘ghost company’ which did not have any establishment at the address on the invoice.
Similarly Mr Butin ran a car dealership in Germany and relied on invoices to deduct input VAT for a number of vehicles acquired from Z for resale. The tax authorities refused claims for deduction of input tax on the ground that the address stipulated...
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 RGEX GmbHc v Finanzamt Neuss (Case C‑374/16) and Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v I Butin (Case C‑375/16) (5 July 2017) the CJEU confirmed that the fact that the address indicated on an invoice was a mere letterbox did not justify the denial of the right to deduct input tax.
RGEX sold cars out of Germany. It had purchased cars from EXTEL and the input tax deductions claimed on the basis of invoices issued by EXTEL had been refused because EXTEL was considered a ‘ghost company’ which did not have any establishment at the address on the invoice.
Similarly Mr Butin ran a car dealership in Germany and relied on invoices to deduct input VAT for a number of vehicles acquired from Z for resale. The tax authorities refused claims for deduction of input tax on the ground that the address stipulated...
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:
