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"
- Comments on ECJ C-101/24 (Xyrality) – Judgment on app stores as VAT commissionaires
- ECJ Confirms Deemed Reseller Rule for App Store In-App Purchases
- VAT Challenges in Toll Manufacturing: Goods vs Services Classification Issues
- VAT and Transfer Pricing – Four recent cases @ ECJ/CJEU – 3 cases decided, 1 case pending
- Briefing document & Podcast: ECJ C-580/16 (Hans Bühler) – Late submission of recapitulative statements should not disqualify a business from exemptions
