Tax & Legal

In a recent judgment the Supreme Tax Court decided that the requirements for an invoice within the meaning of Section 14c (2) Value Added Tax Act (VAT Act) are fulfilled if the document contains the issuer of the invoice, the (presumed) recipient of the service, a description of the service, the remuneration, and information on the VAT shown.

The Supreme Tax Court had asked the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the question of a direct refund claim in the case of incorrectly invoiced and paid German VAT in the event of the supplier's insolvency. In its judgment, the ECJ is of the opinion that the recipient of the service cannot claim a refund of the VAT paid to the supplier directly from the tax authorities of his Member State.

On 15 November 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published its decision in the joined cases of Geissel and Butin ruling that Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (“the VAT Directive”) - Articles 168(a) and 178 (a) together with Article 226(5) - must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input VAT subject to the condition that the address where the issuer of an invoice carries out its economic activity must be indicated on the invoice.

An ECJ advocate general has suggested that the address of the issuer of an invoice must not be identical with the place from where he carries out his economic activity and that any type of address under which the supplier can effectively be contacted is sufficient.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the issuer of an apparent invoice is liable for the VAT shown thereon, even if the invoice is incomplete.