Tax & Legal

Towards the end of 2024 the Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF) commented in some detail on the input VAT deduction for credit institutions. The ministerial pronouncement focuses on the attribution of input transactions to output transactions and the relevant input VAT allocation in accordance with Section 15 (4) VAT Act. Another focus of the MoF circular is on cross-border structures and specifically the services between local branches and their foreign head office and vice versa.

Following a preliminary request from Romania, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to deal with the refusal of the local tax authorities on the right to input VAT deduction if services are not used for taxable transactions. Specifically, it refers to the VAT deduction for intercompany consultancy and administrative services with a supplier located in a country different than Romania.

The invalidity of a legal transaction under national civil law cannot as such lead to the exclusion of the deduction of input VAT. According to a decision of the ECJ, however, this only applies if the national court has examined and ensured that the transaction is not a fictitious transaction or that, if this transaction was physically carried out, it is neither in connection with VAT evasion nor considered as an abuse of rights.

Both the first and the second purchaser in a supply chain may be denied the deduction of input VAT in the full amount if they were aware of a VAT fraud. The alternative brought by the referring German Tax Court to limit the non-deductible input VAT amount to the actual tax loss suffered by the State was rejected by the ECJ.

According to the Supreme Tax Court, there is no retroactive right for input VAT deduction for a German company receiving services from other group companies who initially issued the invoices without VAT but later went to correct it. The correction of the invoice with retroactive effect requires that the original invoice already contains a VAT amount, which was not the case in the dispute before the court.

Services from so-called outplacement companies for individual support to permanent and indefinitely employed workers, in particular by means of so-called job application training, to help them find new employment relationships, qualify for an input VAT deduction. According to the Supreme Tax Court the entrepreneur is entitled to deduct input tax based on an overriding business interest while the employee's interest in the outplacement counseling is secondary.

In a preliminary request from Lithuania the European Court of Justice has ruled that it is contrary to EU law for the local tax authority to deny an input VAT deduction on the grounds of alleged abuse of rights solely because the seller is insolvent, and the buyer was aware of this situation.

The European Court of Justice decided that a holding company with taxable output services to its subsidiaries is not entitled to deduct input tax if the input services received are not directly and immediately related to the holding company's own sales, but rather to the largely tax-exempt activities of the subsidiaries.

The Supreme Tax Court has asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling on the input tax deduction of a functional (operating) holding company from certain input costs.

In its ruling of 20.10.2021 (XI R 10/21), the Supreme Tax Court decided that an input VAT deduction from invoices issued for services in the course of the construction of a tourist attraction which could be used free of charge (here: suspension rope bridge) could be made, if the input services in question were directly related to a service for which payment was received (here: for the provision of parking spaces).

In a most recent ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that, for situations where the output VAT is calculated at the time the remuneration is received rather when the service was completed, the German VAT provision that the right to deduct input VAT must be exercised upon completion of the supply or service is not in line with current EU law, in particular Articles 167 and 66 (1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.

In a Czech case the ECJ once again had the opportunity to comment on the material requirements for the deduction of input VAT. In the current case, the focus of the judicial review was on the ways to demonstrate and prove that the supplier of the service is a taxable person within the meaning of the VAT Directive.

The purchaser of thermal power units, which were not delivered due to fraud, shall not be denied the right to deduct input tax from an advance payment if the supply appeared to be certain at the time of payment. In three decisions, the Supreme Tax Court follows a judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), to which it has referred the cases earlier for a preliminary ruling.

In its judgment in Morgan Stanley (C-165/17) on 24 January 2019, the ECJ ruled on the ratio of deductible input tax in relation to the internal supplies of a French branch to its head office, a financial service provider in the UK.

For the purposes of input VAT deduction, the necessary information about the tax point (the date of the supply) may be inferred from the date on which an invoice was issued, if it can be assumed that the service was provided in the month in which invoice was issued.

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.

Following decisions of the European Court of Justice and the German Supreme Tax Court the Federal Finance Ministry has issued guidelines on the VAT grouping and the input VAT deduction for holding companies. In a special VAT Newsflash our tax experts take a closer look on the situation as a whole.

The right to deduct input VAT may be excluded only in cases in which the goods acquired are used, to an extent greater than 90%, for purposes other than the taxable person’s business, and not where the goods are used for non-economic purposes (such as: in the course of public activities).