Judgment of the Court Ninth Chamber of 26 April Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava. Digital reports Court Reports - general - 'Information on unpublished decisions' section. Vajda, President of the Chamber, E. Radu, C. Florescu and R.
|Published (Last):||20 October 2016|
|PDF File Size:||16.18 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Judgment of the Court Ninth Chamber of 26 April Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava. Digital reports Court Reports - general - 'Information on unpublished decisions' section. Vajda, President of the Chamber, E. Radu, C. Florescu and R. Mangu, acting as Agents,. Lozano Palacios and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents,. EU law. However, Member States may refuse to refund or carry forward if the amount of the excess is insignificant. Every taxable person shall submit a VAT return setting out all the information needed to calculate the tax that has become chargeable and the deductions to be made including, in so far as is necessary for the establishment of the basis of assessment, the total value of the transactions relating to such tax and deductions and the value of any exempt transactions.
That deadline may not be more than two months after the end of each tax period. The tax period shall be set by each Member State at one month, two months or three months. Member States may, however, set different tax periods provided that those periods do not exceed one year.
Romanian law. Tax returns may be corrected by the taxable person on his own initiative within the limitation period for the right to establish tax obligations. Tax returns may be corrected whenever the taxable person becomes aware of errors in the initial return, by filing a corrected return. In the event that, during a tax inspection, the taxpayer files or corrects the tax returns relating to the periods and taxes, contributions and other income that are the subject of that tax inspection, they shall not be taken into consideration by the tax authorities.
The provisions relating to the content and communication of the inspection notice are likewise applicable to the review decision. He is obliged to provide information and to make available in the place where the tax inspection is carried out all the documents and other material necessary to clarify the factual situations that are relevant from a tax perspective.
The present Guidelines do not permit correction of a [VAT] return for tax periods that have already been the subject of a tax inspection or in respect of which a tax inspection is ongoing. In such a situation, the request for correction of the clerical error submitted by the taxable person shall be accompanied by a copy and by the original of that notice. The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling.
The first amount was recorded in that return as a result of the correction, after the conclusion of the abovementioned tax inspection, of an accounting note offsetting VAT for July The second amount results from the correction, in February , of transactions in , in respect of which Zabrus identified the relevant supporting documents in its accounts only after the conclusion of that tax inspection.
They stated that, in accordance with the applicable national legislation, the principle of the unity of tax inspections precluded the reimbursement of the amounts requested by Zabrus because, in respect of the period already subject to inspection, no irregularity concerning VAT contributions had been found and the inspection bodies did not adopt any measure laying down steps to be taken by Zabrus.
Zabrus, by various administrative procedures, tried unsuccessfully to establish its right to reimbursement of the VAT. However, those situations do not arise in the present case. That court found that the principle of unity of tax inspections and that of certainty in legal relations would be infringed if it were possible, following inspection, to submit supporting documents or to take into consideration recording errors altering the amount to be reimbursed under different conditions from those restrictively laid down by the legislature in that area.
It also stated that the loss of the right of deduction is not disproportionate since the recording error and the subsequent discovery of the supporting documents are both imputable to Zabrus. Invoking the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, Zabrus maintained that the extreme solution adopted by the tax authorities, endorsed by the court of first instance, removes its right to deduct VAT on grounds which infringe the VAT Directive.
The referring court considers that Zabrus cannot rely on the case-law of the Court on fiscal neutrality, since it was refused the right to deduct VAT not because of the failure to comply with a formal requirement of the right of deduction but because of the principle of a single tax inspection, arising from the principle of legal certainty, the latter principle being recognised and protected under EU law and the case-law of the Court.
In those circumstances, the Curtea de Apel Suceava Court of Appeal, Suceava decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:. Must [the VAT Directive] and the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, national rules of a legislative nature which deny the possibility of correcting clerical errors in VAT returns for tax periods which have already been the subject of a tax inspection, the only exception being where the correction is made on the basis of a measure laying down the steps to be taken, communicated by the tax inspectorate at the time of the previous inspection?
The deduction system is intended to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of the VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities. Here, it is clear from the national legislation, cited in the order for reference, that the right to deduct VAT is, in Romanian law, subject to the general limitation period of five years. Nevertheless, the exercise of the right of deduction is subject to a shorter limitation period in the event of a tax inspection.
It is, in principle, no longer possible for the taxable person to correct VAT returns for tax periods that have already been the subject of inspection by the tax authorities. Thus, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a taxable person cannot correct his VAT returns. The Romanian Government submits that that restriction follows from the principle of a single tax inspection and that the principle of legal certainty requires that such an inspection takes place on only one occasion.
Although it does not follow from the information provided by the referring court that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings lays down, in respect of VAT, a scheme different from that laid down in other tax matters under national law, the principle of effectiveness, on the other hand, precludes such legislation in so far as it is liable to deny, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a taxable person the opportunity to correct his VAT returns when he has been the subject of a tax inspection concerning the tax period relating to that correction, even though the five-year limitation period laid down by that legislation has not yet elapsed.
When, as in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the tax inspection begins immediately after the filing of a tax return or shortly thereafter, the taxable person is, under that legislation, deprived of the opportunity to correct his VAT return, so that the exercise of the right to deduct VAT by the taxable person becomes impossible in practice or, at the very least, excessively difficult.
Therefore, the fact that national legislation, such as that issue in the main proceedings, deprives the taxable person of the opportunity to correct his VAT return by shortening the time available to him for that purpose is incompatible with the principle of effectiveness.
Furthermore, the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality also preclude legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings. However, in the main proceedings, it is precisely the failure to comply with certain formal requirements laid down by the national legislation at issue which resulted in Zabrus being refused the deduction of VAT in respect of Zabrus, even though it had requested a correction of its returns in order to show that the substantive conditions for deduction of the two amounts at issue were met.
The non-compliance with formal requirements, which may be remedied, is not such as to call into question the proper functioning of the VAT system. As regards the principle of proportionality, it is true that the national legislature is able to attach penalties to the formal obligations of taxable persons to encourage them to comply with those obligations, in order to ensure the proper working of the VAT system. Accordingly, an administrative fine could, inter alia, be imposed on a negligent taxable person who corrects his VAT return by relying on documents proving his entitlement to a VAT deduction which were in his possession at the time his VAT return was filed or following the discovery of a recording error altering the amount of VAT to be reimbursed.
However, there is nothing in the documents before the Court to suggest evasion or detriment to the budget of the State. A national tax inspection system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not allow a taxable person to correct his VAT return, although it provides for such correction where it is made by implementing a measure of a tax authority and provides for the tax authorities to be able to conduct a review where they have new information, is not intended to safeguard the rights of tax payers and does not appear to serve the application of the principle of legal certainty.
In reality, such a system, coupled with those exceptions, is implemented mainly to ensure the effectiveness of tax inspections and the functioning of the national administration.
On the other hand, it does not follow from that judgment that the tax authorities may rely, within the limitation period, on that principle to oppose the correction by the taxable person of a VAT return in respect of a period which has already been subject to a tax inspection. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. Skip to main content. This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website. EU case-law Case-law Digital reports Directory of case-law. Quick search. Need more search options? Use the Advanced search. Help Print this page.
Expand all Collapse all. Title and reference. Languages and formats available. Language of the case Language. Document published in the digital reports. Multilingual display.
Authentic language. Authentic language: Romanian. Subject matter: Value added tax Taxation Case law directory code: 4.
Miscellaneous information. Notes relating to the decision: 4. Relationship between documents. Wahl, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: — the Romanian Government, by R. Mangu, acting as Agents, — the European Commission, by L. Costs 57 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds, the Court Ninth Chamber hereby rules:.
decont cu suma negativa de TVA
TCTerms is here for the purpose of finding answers to questions. Any input should have to do only with this purpose. Anything that does not serve this purpose will get deleted. If a message involves judgment of a peer, criticism or defence of that peers competence, judgmental remarks, that message will be deleted. If within the body of a communication there is that judgement, that part will be taken out. Refutation of an answer should be based only on the answer or its resources.
Translation of "VAT return" in Romanian
Results: Exact: Elapsed time: 45 ms. All rights reserved. Join Reverso, it's free and fast! Register Login. These examples may contain rude words based on your search.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
decont de TVA