Title Atsisakymas suteikti teisę į PVM atskaitą, kai apmokestinamasis asmuo (pirkėjas) žinojo arba turėjo žinoti, jog įsigydamas prekes jis dalyvauja sukčiavime PVM srityje /
Translation of Title Refusal to grant the right to deduction of vat when the taxable person (buyer) knew or ought to have known that by acquiring the goods he was involved in the vat fraud.
Authors Miliauskaitė, Lina
Full Text Download
Pages 56
Abstract [eng] Refusal to Grant the Right to Deduction of VAT when the Taxable Person (Buyer) Knew or Ought to Have Known that by Acquiring the Goods He Was Involved in the VAT Fraud Value added tax (VAT) is paid from the value added additional by putting taxes on supplies of goods and services. VAT roots can be found in France since 1957. However, the occurrence of modern VAT is related to the Sixth Council Directive of the Member States relating to turnover taxes adopted on 17 May 1997. Its up-to-date version was adopted on 28 November 2006, by Sixth Council Directive No 2006/112/EB, which currently is an essential VAT treatment document. Right to deduct VAT is an essential element of the VAT system. Case law on several occasions highlighted that right to deduct VAT could be restricted only in exceptional and duly justified cases. Case law often confronts the situation when a taxable person gets involved in tax evasion even though he has not entered into abusive practices; is not directly doing tax evasion but is consider being a part of such a process by signing particular transactions. Case law points out tree main cases when a taxable person could be declined to a right to deduct VAT. Such cases are when: 1) Transactions based on this right were made abusively; 2) Person itself is involved in tax evasion; 3) If considered all objective circumstances is still proved that a taxable person (buyer) knew or ought to have known that by acquiring the goods he was involved in the VAT fraud. Case law of the third case mentioned above shows that the problem results in the clarification if a taxable person knew and ought to have known or did not knew and did not ought to have known about the fraud of a contractual partner. It should be stressed that the up-to-date case-law shows that it is necessary to consider not only formal proofs but also to value all objective circumstances.
Dissertation Institution Vilniaus universitetas.
Type Master thesis
Language Lithuanian
Publication date 2018