In Uszodaépíto Kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Foosztály (ECJ Case C-392/09) the ECJ held that Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as precluding the retroactive application of national legislation which in the context of a reverse charge regime makes the deduction of value added tax relating to construction works conditional upon the amendment of invoices for those services and the submission of a supplementary amending tax declaration while the tax authority concerned has all the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is as the recipient of the supply of services at issue liable to value added tax and to ascertain the amount of tax deductible’.
Why it matters: The ECJ held that the retrospective nature of the Hungarian legislation contravened the Principal VAT Directive.
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 Uszodaépíto Kft v APEH Központi Hivatal Hatósági Foosztály (ECJ Case C-392/09) the ECJ held that Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC ‘must be interpreted as precluding the retroactive application of national legislation which in the context of a reverse charge regime makes the deduction of value added tax relating to construction works conditional upon the amendment of invoices for those services and the submission of a supplementary amending tax declaration while the tax authority concerned has all the information necessary to establish that the taxable person is as the recipient of the supply of services at issue liable to value added tax and to ascertain the amount of tax deductible’.
Why it matters: The ECJ held that the retrospective nature of the Hungarian legislation contravened the Principal VAT Directive.
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:
