Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CN0576

Case C-576/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 November 2015 — ЕТ ‘Maya Marinova’ v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.1.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/13


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo (Bulgaria) lodged on 9 November 2015 — ЕТ ‘Maya Marinova’ v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-576/15)

(2016/C 027/17)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Veliko Tarnovo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ET ‘Maya Marinova’

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Veliko Tarnovo pri Tsentralno upravlenie na natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 273, Article 2(1)(a), Article 9(1) and Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, taken together, having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is to be entitled to treat the actual absence of goods which were transferred to a taxable person by way of taxable supplies as subsequent taxable supplies of those goods for consideration by that taxable person, without the recipient of those goods being identified, where the aim is to prevent VAT evasion?

2.

Must the provisions referred to in Question 1, having regard to the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is to be entitled to treat the failure by a taxable person to record tax-relevant documents relating to taxable supplies received in the manner described above, where this serves the same aim?

3.

Must Article 273, Article 73 and Article 80 of Directive 2006/112/EC, taken together, having regard to the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that Member States are to be entitled, on the basis of national provisions which do not serve to transpose the VAT Directive, to determine taxable amounts for supplies of goods by a taxable person in a way which diverges from the general rule provided for in Article 73 of the VAT Directive and the exceptions expressly provided for in Article 80 of that directive, where the aim is, first, to prevent VAT evasion and, secondly, to determine a taxable amount for the transactions concerned that is a reliable as possible?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).


Top