The ECJ has already, on several occasions in the past, dealt with the significance of an invoice for the input VAT deduction. In the cases Senatex (C-518/14) and Barlis (C-516/14), it has relaxed the requirements for an invoice entitling for an input VAT deduction in favor of the taxable person, particularly if any information is incorrect or missing. In its subsequent decision in Vădan (C-664/16) it could be concluded that the submission of invoices is not even mandatory for the input VAT deduction. In its current decision of 21.10.2021 in the case Wilo Salmson (C80/20), the ECJ once again comments on the concept of an invoice.
Source KMLZ
See also
- Flashback on ECJ/CJEU cases: Right to deduct VAT in case of missing invoice requirements – Substance over Form
- Roadtrip through ECJ cases – Cases referring to art. 226 – Content of an invoice (required for the Right to deduct VAT)
- C-516/14 (Barlis) – Vague description of the services and the dates may not lead to refusal of VAT deduction
- C-518/14 Senatex – VAT deduction for non-compliant invoices
- C-664/16 (Vadan) – No right to deduct VAT in the absence of invoices
- C-80/20 (Wilo Salmson France) – Decision – Cancellation and reissuance of invoice does not change period for which VAT refund can be requested
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- New InfoCuria case-law database and search tool
- New General Court VAT case – C-903/25 (Grotta Nuova) – No details known yet
- New General Court VAT case – C-914/25 (Modelo Continente Hipermercados) – No details known yet
- Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”Exemption – Financial transactions – Credits and transfer of Credits” (Art. 135(1)(b))
- ECJ C-465/25 (Matin Maier) – Questions – Can Businesses Recover VAT if Supplier’s VAT Number Is Revoked?
