When a purchase invoice bears the wrong company name, it raises questions about whether the buying business can still deduct the VAT. Under EU VAT law and Court of Justice (CJEU) case law, minor invoice errors (like a typo in the name) generally do not invalidate your right to deduct input VAT, whereas major errors (the invoice made out to an entirely different legal entity) require corrective action. Below, we break down relevant CJEU rulings, distinguish minor vs. major errors, and explain how to deal with each situation, combining legal reasoning with practical steps.
- Minor invoice errors don’t cancel VAT deduction: Under EU VAT law, small mistakes in invoice details (e.g. a typo or slight name discrepancy) are considered formal errors. The CJEU has ruled that VAT deduction cannot be denied solely for such errors if the actual supply occurred and the substantive conditions are met.
- Major errors require correction for compliance: If an invoice is issued to the wrong legal entity entirely, it should be corrected (credit note & reissue) to ensure a valid invoice for input VAT deduction. However, if correction is impossible, tax authorities may still allow the deduction given proof of the real transaction and no fraud risk.
VAT Invoices and the Importance of Correct Name
EU VAT Directive requirements: A valid VAT invoice must contain certain details, including the full name and address of both the supplier and the customer (purchaser). This requirement (from Article 226(5) of Directive 2006/112/EC) is a formal obligation intended to identify the parties to a transaction. In principle, an invoice made out to the wrong name means the customer detail is incorrect. Article 178(a) of the VAT Directive also says a business needs an invoice drawn up in accordance with these rules in order to exercise the right to deduct VAT. [vatupdate.com]
However, EU case law draws a line between “substantive” requirements and “formal” requirements for VAT deduction. The substantive conditions for input VAT deduction are that (a) there was a supply of goods or services made by a taxable person, (b) the purchaser is a taxable person using those inputs for their economic activity, and (c) the goods/services are used for taxable (VAT-able) output transactions. By contrast, holding a proper invoice with all the details is a formal condition. In the CJEU’s words, “holding an invoice showing the details mentioned in Article 226 of Directive 2006/112 is a formal condition, not a substantive condition, of the right to deduct VAT.” In other words, a mistake in the invoice’s details (like an incorrect name) does not change the fact that a supply occurred between two taxable persons (the substantive reality); it’s a compliance/formality issue. [vatupdate.com]
VAT neutrality principle: The overarching principle in EU VAT is neutrality – VAT should be neutral for businesses, meaning a company should not be made to bear VAT cost due to someone else’s error or a procedural formality. Tax authorities can impose penalties or require fixes for invoice mistakes, but they must not undermine the right to deduct tax beyond what’s necessary to protect public revenue. This principle guides how errors on invoices are handled. [vatupdate.com], [vatdesk.eu] [vatupdate.com]
CJEU Case Law on Invoice Errors and VAT Deduction
Over the years, CJEU rulings have consistently held that purely formal invoice errors should not automatically invalidate the right to deduct input VAT, provided the essential conditions of a genuine transaction are met. Some key rulings relevant to incorrect invoice details (including name errors) include:
-
Pannon Gép Centrum (Case C-368/09, 2010) – The invoice had the wrong completion date for the service, and when corrected, the cancellation credit note and new invoice had non-sequential numbering. The Court ruled that denying VAT deduction just because of such invoice errors is not permitted if the underlying transaction occurred and a corrected invoice with the proper date was submitted before the tax authority made a decision. The tax authority cannot insist on flawless invoice sequencing or penalize a taxpayer who fixes an invoice error timely. This case shows that invoices can be corrected to remedy errors, and once corrected, the deduction should be allowed as if the invoice had been right initially. [vatupdate.com]
-
Senatex (Case C-518/14, 2016) – The issue was a missing VAT identification number on the invoice, which is a required detail. The CJEU held that the invoice could be corrected to add the missing VAT number, and the correction would have retroactive effect for claiming input VAT. The tax authority cannot refuse the deduction or postpone it to the date of correction. This reinforced that formal deficiencies (even a missing key detail) can be rectified without losing the deduction, upholding neutrality. [vatupdate.com]
-
Barlis 06 (Case C-516/14, 2016) – Invoices for legal services had a vague description of the services and no specific dates, violating invoice detail requirements. The Court found that while the invoices didn’t fully meet formal requirements, the tax authorities already had all the information needed (the taxpayer provided additional documents detailing the services). The CJEU ruled that tax authorities may not refuse the right to deduct VAT solely because the invoice lacks certain details, if they have the necessary information to ascertain the transaction’s reality. In short, a VAT deduction cannot be denied purely on the basis of incomplete invoice information when the substantive accuracy of the transaction can be confirmed. This implies that a missing or incorrect name on an invoice – by itself – should not result in refusal of deduction, so long as it’s clear which transaction and parties the invoice actually refers to. [vatupdate.com]
-
Geissel/Butin (Joined Cases C-374/16 and C-375/16, 2017) – These cases dealt with whether the address on an invoice must be the supplier’s actual business address. The invoices showed a mailbox address for the supplier, not the place of economic activity. The CJEU held that insisting on the “correct” physical address is an excessive formalism: as long as the supplier can be contacted at the address on the invoice, that satisfies the Directive. The purchaser’s input VAT deduction could not be disallowed merely because the invoice address was a PO box. The Court emphasized substance over form – the invoice did name the right supplier (and customer) and the supply occurred; the fact that the address wasn’t the operational address didn’t make the invoice invalid. By analogy, a slightly incorrect name that doesn’t cast doubt on the purchaser’s identity should likewise not defeat the right to deduct. [vatupdate.com]
-
Mennica Wrocławska (Case C-491/18, 2018) – The description of the goods on the invoices was erroneous (the invoices misidentified the goods). The Polish authorities sought to deny the input VAT deduction on that ground alone. The CJEU firmly rejected this approach: Tax authorities may not refuse the right to deduct input VAT solely because the invoice contains an error in the description of the goods. Punishing a minor invoice mistake by denying the deduction “goes beyond what is necessary” to ensure VAT is correctly applied. Importantly, the Court said the buyer does not even need to obtain a corrected invoice or credit note in this case – it is sufficient if the buyer provides the authorities with other documentation or explanations to show what was actually supplied. So, even without a formally perfect invoice, the deduction stands as long as substantive conditions are satisfied. This underscores that tax authorities must look at additional evidence and not just the face of the invoice if a formal detail is wrong. [vatdesk.eu]
-
PPUH Stehcemp (Case C-277/14, 2015) – This case, while a bit different, is illuminating on identity errors. A company bought fuel and received invoices from what turned out to be a fictitious supplier (a non-existent entity). Polish law refused VAT deduction since the issuer didn’t legally exist. The CJEU, however, ruled that EU law “precludes” a blanket refusal in such a scenario if the goods were actually delivered to the buyer by someone and the buyer did not know or could not have known of the fraud. In essence, even though the invoices had a fundamentally wrong detail (the supplier’s identity), the buyer’s right to deduct remained intact because the substantive reality was that the buyer received those goods and paid VAT on them in good faith. Only if the buyer was aware of the fraud would the deduction be denied. This extreme example shows the CJEU’s commitment to substance: even a major defect in invoice information (a fake name) did not destroy the deduction, absent buyer complicity. By extension, if the customer name on the invoice is wrong but everything else (the transaction, the VAT paid) is real, the tax authority should not automatically deny the input VAT claim. They should consider whether it’s a benign error rather than assume the invoice is void. [vatdesk.eu]
Takeaway from case law: The trend in CJEU jurisprudence is clear – erroneous or missing invoice details are viewed as remediable formal errors. So long as the transaction itself is genuine and there is no intent to evade tax, input VAT deduction should not be forfeited just because of an invoice technicality. Tax authorities can require the taxpayer to clarify or correct the error, and they can impose proportionate penalties or administrative fines for not meeting invoicing rules, but they cannot outright refuse the VAT deduction if doing so would violate VAT neutrality. In practical terms, an invoice with the wrong company name is not a dead loss – it can be fixed, and even if it can’t be fixed immediately, the underlying right to deduct likely persists, subject to proper evidence. [vatdesk.eu], [vatupdate.com] [vatupdate.com], [vatdesk.eu]
Minor vs. Major Name Errors: Differences and Legal Implications
Not all “wrong name” situations are equal. It’s helpful to distinguish minor invoice name errors from major errors:
-
Minor errors: These are clerical or innocuous mistakes that do not misidentify the actual parties. For example, a spelling mistake in the company name, a minor typo, a former trade name or old company name being used, or a slight discrepancy like “ABC Consulting Ltd” vs “ABC Consultants Ltd.” on the invoice. In these cases, it’s usually obvious that the invoice was intended for the correct company (perhaps the VAT number and address match the buyer, and only the name is slightly off).
-
Major errors: These involve the invoice being issued to a different legal entity altogether. For instance, the invoice has the name of another company (with a different VAT number) or some completely incorrect client name that doesn’t correspond to the purchaser’s business at all. This could happen due to a supplier’s mistake (e.g. mixing up two clients) or because the buyer’s business changed names or legal form and the invoice reflects the wrong entity. Here, the risk is that the invoice, on its face, does not appear to be addressed to the taxpayer who is claiming the VAT. From a tax authority perspective, this is more serious because it raises the question: Does the invoice legitimately support that this specific taxpayer paid VAT on a purchase? Or could it belong to someone else?
Implications for VAT deduction:
-
Minor Name Errors – Input VAT still allowable: According to the principles set out by the CJEU, a minor name error is a purely formal mistake that on its own should not preclude the right to deduct VAT. The error does not change the identity of the buyer in any meaningful way. For example, if the invoice says “ABC Consulting” instead of the official name “ABC Consulting Limited,” but it’s clear who the supplier intended as the customer (same address, VAT number, etc.), denying VAT recovery on this ground would be disproportionate. Tax authorities are expected to exercise pragmatism: penalizing a typo by refusing the VAT claim “goes beyond what is necessary” to ensure proper tax collection. Indeed, tax offices in practice often accept such invoices especially if accompanied by an explanation. For instance, HMRC in the UK has the administrative discretion to allow input VAT claims even when the invoice has a slight mistake in the name, provided you have made efforts to get it corrected and there is no risk that another entity could also claim that VAT. The key is that the invoice, albeit imperfect, can be tied to the actual claimant. As long as you can show the invoice corresponds to your purchase (e.g. you have purchase orders, contracts or delivery notes in your correct name, and you paid for it), the VAT deduction is legally defensible. The CJEU decisions like Geissel/Butin and Mennica support the view that such an error does not invalidate the invoice for deduction purposes. In summary, a minor name error = the right to deduct remains intact, and the invoice is substantively valid. [vatdesk.eu] [accountingweb.co.uk] [vatupdate.com], [vatdesk.eu]
-
Major Name Errors – Correction needed (but deduction not permanently lost): If the error is major – for example, your supplier put an entirely different company’s name on the invoice – the situation is more problematic. Technically, the invoice fails the requirement of identifying you as the customer at all. From a strict reading of the VAT Directive, you do not “hold an invoice” made out to you in this case (since it’s made out to someone else). Tax authorities are likely to view such an invoice as invalid for claiming input VAT until it is fixed to name the correct entity. In many EU countries, the standard procedure would be to get the supplier to issue a corrected invoice (or an credit note plus a new invoice) with the right name before you claim the VAT. If you were to book and claim VAT on the original invoice as-is, you could face a challenge in a VAT audit, because the invoice on its face doesn’t belong to your company. For example, a user reported that their tax authority refused input VAT on invoices addressed to their old sole proprietorship after they incorporated as a company, insisting that the invoices bear the exact company name to be valid. This illustrates that major discrepancies are taken seriously. However, it’s important to stress that even a major error does not necessarily mean you permanently lose the VAT deduction. It means you must remedy the situation. The supplier’s mistake can be corrected, and once corrected, your right to deduct is restored (in fact, CJEU case law implies it was never lost – it was just unexercisable until a proper invoice was in hand). If, for some reason, the invoice cannot be corrected (say the supplier refuses or is no longer in business), you are not automatically out of options. CJEU jurisprudence (like Barlis and Stehcemp) would say the tax authority should consider other evidence to satisfy themselves that you indeed purchased and used those goods/services and paid VAT on them, even though the invoice name is wrong. If you can conclusively show that you were the intended buyer (for instance, the other named entity never received or paid for the supply, and all business realities point to you), the authority should not refuse your deduction solely due to the name error, in line with the principle of VAT neutrality and proportionality. They may require a statement or affidavit that the other company (the one named) will not claim that VAT, to ensure no double-claim risk. But fundamentally, EU law favors giving you the deduction once the mistake is cleared up or proven harmless. In practice, though, not correcting a major error is risky – it could lead to a protracted dispute. So while legally the door isn’t closed, the prudent approach is to treat a major name error as an urgent issue to fix (see next section for how). [accountingweb.co.uk] [vatupdate.com], [vatdesk.eu] [accountingweb.co.uk]
To summarize the legal impact: Minor errors: VAT deduction allowed, with supporting evidence, even without a new invoice. Major errors: likely disallowed until corrected, but once corrected (or otherwise evidenced), VAT deduction is allowed. If uncorrectable, you may still prevail by demonstrating the transaction’s reality, though that might require a fight.
Below is a quick-reference table comparing the scenarios:
Minor Invoice Name Error (e.g., typo, slight name discrepancy):
- Examples: “Ltd” omitted from the company name, spelling mistakes, use of an old trading name.
- CJEU Position:
- Treated as a formal (non-substantive) mistake.
- Does not invalidate the right to deduct VAT.
- Tax authorities cannot refuse the VAT claim solely on this basis.
- The invoice is still considered valid for VAT purposes if the substantive facts of the transaction are clear. [vatdesk.eu]
- Recommended Action:
- Keep the invoice as-is.
- Ideally, request the supplier to confirm the correct name via email or a note, but a reissued invoice is not strictly necessary. [vatdesk.eu]
- Proceed to claim the VAT.
- Maintain supporting documentation (e.g., payment receipts, purchase orders) to demonstrate the invoice pertains to your company in case of audit.
Major Invoice Name Error (e.g., wrong legal entity name):
- Examples: Invoice issued to “XYZ Ltd” (an unrelated company) instead of your actual company “ABC Ltd”.
- CJEU Position:
- Considered a serious flaw.
- Initially, you do not hold a valid invoice in your name, so tax authorities can deny the VAT deduction.
- However, EU law allows for correction or acceptance of alternative evidence rather than permanent denial of the deduction. [vatupdate.com], [accountingweb.co.uk]
- Recommended Action:
- Do not claim VAT on the faulty invoice without correction.
- Request the supplier to issue:
- A credit note canceling the original invoice.
- A new invoice with the correct company name. [accountingweb.co.uk], [vatupdate.com]
- Book all related documents (original invoice, credit note, corrected invoice) to maintain a clear audit trail.
- If a corrected invoice cannot be obtained:
- Gather comprehensive evidence showing the supply was made to your company.
- Consult with the tax authority—VAT may still be claimable with their approval based on the evidence provided (as a last resort).
Practical Guidance: How to Handle Invoices with the Wrong Name
Finally, translating the legal principles into practical steps, here’s how you should deal with an invoice that has an incorrect company name.
1. Attempt to get the invoice corrected (especially for major errors). The simplest way to resolve any doubt is to ask the supplier to issue a corrected invoice in your company’s correct name. Typically this involves the supplier issuing a credit note or cancellation for the original invoice, and then issuing a replacement invoice with a new number. The new invoice will have the correct name (and usually reference the original). According to EU rules, any document that amends and refers to the initial invoice is treated as part of the invoicing process (Directive 2006/112/EC, Article 219), so a credit note plus new invoice together fulfill the requirement of a proper invoice. The CJEU in Pannon Gép Centrum confirmed that there is no problem with this approach even if the cancellation and reissue break sequential numbering – what matters is that the correction is made and linked to the original. Practical tip: When you receive the new corrected invoice, ensure it has a different invoice number and that the credit note explicitly references the original wrong invoice (for clarity). You should then record the original invoice and the credit note in your purchase ledger (they will cancel each other out for VAT and expense purposes), and record the corrected invoice as the document on which you actually claim the input VAT. This way, your books reflect the full paper trail: the erroneous invoice was voided and replaced. Keeping all three documents is important for audit transparency. If the supplier simply issues a corrected invoice without a formal credit note (some might just send a revised invoice document with the same number or a note “corrected invoice” on it), ask if they can also issue a note or credit for the first one. If they will not, then retain any correspondence wherein the supplier acknowledges the mistake and the fact that the later invoice is the valid one. [vatupdate.com] [vatupdate.com]
2. For minor errors, decide if a correction is needed: In cases of a minor name mistake, you might find the supplier is reluctant to go through the hassle of reissuing an invoice. Given CJEU case law and common practice, you do not necessarily need a fully reissued invoice for a small error like this. It’s often sufficient to have the supplier confirm the correct details via email or to note on the invoice (if they send a letter, for instance) the correction. Many companies will still prefer to get a clean invoice for bookkeeping neatness, but there is latitude. If the supplier won’t reissue, make a written record on your side: for example, annotate a copy of the invoice with “customer name should read XYZ Ltd” and date it, and keep any email from the supplier apologizing for the error. This documentation, together with the invoice, would support your VAT claim. You can then book the original invoice in your accounts under the correct company, treating the typo as if it were already fixed. In your VAT records, it’s a valid invoice (the tax amount, supplier, etc., are all correct) – only the name was slightly off, which, as discussed, doesn’t invalidate it. In an audit, you can point to CJEU rulings and local guidelines that back up deduction in such circumstances. [vatdesk.eu]
3. Ensure no duplicate deduction risk: One crucial thing when dealing with a wrong-name invoice is to ensure that only your company ends up claiming that VAT. If the invoice was addressed to another real company (major error scenario), you should confirm that the other company did not and will not claim input VAT on it. Usually, if it was a mistake, the other company never actually received the invoice or paid it. But it could happen in a mix-up that two companies receive copies showing their respective name – you want to avoid any confusion. Tax authorities are especially concerned about an invoice being used twice. So, if you have a situation where, say, the invoice was made out to an old entity of yours (e.g. you changed from a sole trader to a limited company), make sure the old entity isn’t also filing a VAT claim. Internally document that “Invoice X addressed to [old name] was accounted for in [new company name]’s books and [old entity] did not use it.” As noted by a UK VAT expert, HMRC’s willingness to allow a claim in spite of an incorrect name partly hinges on being satisfied that no third party could also claim that VAT. This principle holds generally: the tax authority will be lenient if no tax revenue risk is posed by the error. [accountingweb.co.uk]
4. Claim the VAT in the correct period (if allowed by your country’s rules): If you receive the corrected invoice, you might wonder whether you should claim the VAT in the period of the original invoice or the period when the correction was made. EU law (thanks to Senatex) indicates that the deduction should be regarded as if it were in the original period because the correction has retroactive effect. In practice, many tax authorities will allow you to simply include the input VAT in the period of the original invoice once the corrected document is obtained (or to adjust a subsequent return). Check local guidance – some might ask that you claim it when corrected (if the correction crosses into a new tax period, for example), but you can often argue for a retrospective claim if needed. The main point is you should not be penalized with a late claim solely because of the invoice error; any timing issue can usually be resolved by amendment or as a special case referencing the court rulings. [vatupdate.com]
5. Keep evidence of good faith and substantive accuracy: Especially for a major error scenario, maintain a file with all relevant evidence: the original invoice, the communications with the supplier, the corrected invoice or notes, proof of payment to the supplier from your company’s bank account, copies of contracts or delivery documents showing your company was the buyer, and so on. If the tax authority ever questions the deduction, presenting this evidence of the real transaction and your proactive correction efforts will be very helpful. The tone of CJEU case law is that a taxpayer who acts in good faith and with diligence (i.e. tries to get things right) should not be punished by losing a deduction due. In one case, the CJEU explicitly noted that checking every invoice for something like the correct address is not a reasonable expectation on businesses in the ordinary course. By extension, an occasional misaddressed invoice can happen despite your best efforts – showing that you tried to fix it and that everything else is in order will typically satisfy the auditors. [marosavat.com]
6. Consider engaging the supplier’s help in writing: Suppliers are also interested in maintaining correct paperwork (they may need to keep their output VAT records straight). If a supplier is slow to correct an invoice, it sometimes helps to gently remind them that an incorrect invoice can cause issues for both parties if not fixed. If they truly cannot reissue (say, their system doesn’t allow changing customer name after the fact easily), ask them for an official letter on company letterhead acknowledging that “Invoice #123 was issued to [Wrong Name] in error and should have been to [Your Company Name]. Both refer to the same actual transaction.” Such a letter, attached to the invoice, effectively serves as an amending document (which under Article 219 of the Directive can be considered part of the invoice records). This could be an alternative way to have “all three documents” without an actual credit note – you’d have the original invoice, a letter (amendment) and perhaps a copy invoice print with the correction. This, while somewhat informal, could be acceptable evidence in many jurisdictions if audited, given the EU stance that no specific format for correction is mandated as long as the necessary information is unambiguously available.
7. Involve the tax authority if needed: If you are in a scenario where you absolutely cannot get a correct invoice (perhaps the supplier went bankrupt or refuses to engage) and the amount of VAT is significant, you might consider proactively contacting your tax office for advice or clearance. Some tax authorities, when presented with the facts, will grant permission to claim the VAT on the flawed invoice, essentially acknowledging the evidence you have. They might require you to obtain some affidavit or keep a special file, but they could bless the deduction. For example, a tax office might say “we will allow the claim for VAT on invoice X (wrongly addressed) given that you’ve shown the purchase relates to your business and no one else can claim it.” This is effectively what the CJEU indicated should happen if obtaining a corrected invoice is impossible despite your best efforts. By getting their sign-off, you eliminate uncertainty. Of course, approaches to this vary by country (and some tax authorities might simply insist on correction), but it’s an option if you’re stuck. [accountingweb.co.uk]
In summary, the practical approach is: fix what you can, document what you can’t. Book the transactions in a way that reflects reality (don’t lose the deduction just because of delay in paperwork), but also make sure there is a paper trail to back up your claim.
Conclusion
Core principles: An invoice showing the wrong customer name is fundamentally a formal defect, not a sign of an invalid transaction. According to CJEU case law, VAT deductions should hinge on the reality of the transaction – not on perfection of paperwork. If your company received the goods/services, paid the VAT, and intended to get an invoice in its own name, a mistake in the name can be corrected or accounted for without depriving you of the VAT credit. Minor errors (like typos) are inconsequential to your right to deduct and usually don’t even need a formal fix to uphold the claim. Major errors (like the invoice being billed to the wrong entity) do require attention – primarily to prevent any confusion or abuse – but once addressed (by reissuing the invoice or providing equivalent proof), the outcome is the same: you are entitled to your input VAT deduction. [vatdesk.eu], [vatupdate.com]
Best practice: From both a compliance and audit defense standpoint, it is best to have invoices that reflect the correct details. So, proactively, ensure suppliers have your up-to-date legal name and VAT number to minimize errors. When errors do occur, act promptly: getting a corrected invoice is the cleanest resolution. Booking all related documents ensures your accounts match the actual tax documents. Remember that VAT regulations in each EU country might have procedural nuances (some require a self-issued document or a specific way to record adjustments), but none can contravene the fundamental EU law principles affirmed by the CJEU.
What you should avoid is simply ignoring the issue. Don’t just leave a wrong-name invoice in your files without either correcting it or documenting it, because that could raise red flags later. Also, avoid claiming VAT on an invoice that clearly doesn’t belong to you without any supporting evidence or explanation – that could be seen as careless or even an attempted overclaim if misunderstood. Always be prepared to demonstrate that the invoice, albeit misnamed, was truly yours (for example, tie it to a purchase order or contract in your name).
In conclusion, you can most often still book and deduct the VAT from a misnamed invoice, especially if it’s a minor error, but the optimal approach is to have that invoice corrected and to book all three documents (original, credit, reissue) to have a complete audit trail. If correction isn’t feasible, rely on the protection given by EU case law: as long as there’s no tax revenue at risk and no fraud, a mere naming mistake should not cost you your VAT deduction. Tax authorities, guided by the CJEU decisions, should focus on the transaction’s substance – ensuring the VAT was properly paid to the supplier and that the supply was real – rather than on penalizing unintentional invoice errors. By following the steps above, you’ll align with both the legal precedent and practical requirements, securing your VAT deduction while rectifying the documentation error. [accountingweb.co.uk], [accountingweb.co.uk]
See also Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Right to Deduct VAT and ”Substance over form” concept – VATupdate
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- Comments on ECJ Case C-639/24: Limits on Denying VAT Exemption for Intra-Community Supplies
- European Parliament Analysis: The Role of the Reverse Charge Mechanism in Tackling VAT Fraud
- Mathez Formation: VAT news: the CJEU puts economic reality back at the centre of the game (Feb 6)
- Blog: Navigating Indirect Rebates: A Call for Clarity in VAT Regulations Under ViDA
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ C-462/16 – Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG – Discounts reduce the VAT value of pharmaceutical supplies
