This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CN0375
Case C-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
Case C-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
Case C-375/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
OJ C 392, 24.10.2016, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
24.10.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 392/6 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 7 July 2016 — Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v Igor Butin
(Case C-375/16)
(2016/C 392/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesfinanzhof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach
Defendant: Igor Butin
Questions referred
1. |
Does Article 226(5) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax of 28 November 2006 (‘the VAT Directive’) (1) require the taxable person to indicate an address at which he carries on his economic activities? |
2. |
If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
|
3. |
In the event that the formal invoicing requirements laid down in Article 226 of the VAT Directive are not met, must the taxable person automatically be allowed to deduct input tax where no tax evasion has been committed or the taxable person did not know, and could not have known, of the connection with fraud or, in that event, does the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations presuppose that the taxable person has done everything that could reasonably be required of him in order to verify the accuracy of the content of the invoice? |