Application for input tax refund; Question of effective application by Use of reference numbers

    Whole Article as PDF(german) (61 KB)

    The subject of the officially prescribed data set, to § 61 Abs. 1 UStDV Is, inter alia, an application. In this attachment are the bills for which the input tax refund is sought, to list in detail. According to Art. 8 para. 2 Letter d of Directive 2008/9 / EC also includes "date and number of the invoice". Irrespective of whether the legislator complies with the provision of § 18 (9) UStG in conjunction with § 61 Abs. 1 UStDV has sufficiently determined the required information is sufficient in In the present case, the information given in the disputed invoices specified reference numbers meet the requirements for a form-effective Application in the input tax refund procedure.
    FG Köln, Urt. v. 14.9.2016 – 2 K 195/14, Rev. eingelegt, Az. BFH: XI R 13/17

    Facts:
    The parties argue about the entitlement of the applicant, for the period July to September 2012, and in this case the question of whether the appropriate Request for remuneration concerning the details of individual invoices duly filed has been.
    The plaintiff is a capital company domiciled in Austria, whose object of business is ... is. She, the plaintiff, applied for on 29 October 2012 - by the Financial Administration in State of residence of the applicant established portal - the defendant in electronic Application procedure the input tax refund in the special procedure according to § 18 Abs. 9 UStG iVm §§ 59 ff. UStDV for July to September 2012 in the amount of 71,907.08 €. The request for compensation was in Substantial invoices on the supply of ... from which the applicant deducted the input tax asserted, under. In the official annex to the application with the individual listing of the Invoices are for individual invoices of the A-GmbH (application items 1, 7, 12, 18, 19, 24) in the column "document number" does not contain the invoice number listed in the invoice, but one other reference numbers contained in the invoices ("Comp. Ref."). The settlement modalities agreed by the plaintiff with Group A are fulfilled The appellant's description is as follows: Group A does not only operate in Germany Net, but also in other EU countries such as Belgium or Italy. For this purpose, the Group national companies. About the deliveries will be in a 14-day rhythm settled. Billing to the plaintiff is made via the German A-GmbH. This assigns - in addition to an invoice number - per Settlement period, a unique reference number under which the applicant Member State in which the applicant's employees ... received separate invoices. Both the reference numbers and the invoice number are alphanumerically structured, have an ascending number after a country code and become a state for which the A- GmbH created a statement, used only once. This makes it possible for the A-GmbH, the Applicant with a single statement of deliveries in the various EU Member States separately and the sales tax applicable to the respective EU Member State applicable. In addition, reference is made to the three examples set out by the applicant Settlements of the A-GmbH v. 15.7.2012 concerning deliveries in Belgium (invoice number 1), Italy (invoice number 2) and Germany (invoice number 3), each under the standardized reference number 4, reference has been made. The applicant paid the invoices created under a reference number in one amount. In the accounting of The applicant was registered with the reference numbers. Accordingly, in evaluations, about for the preparation of input tax refund applications, including these reference numbers output. The disputed invoices of the A-GmbH are as follows:

    Pos. Invoice date reference number invoice number Invoice amount (net) € VAT amount €
    115.7.20124335.837,846.809,22
    731.7.201251042.845,088.140,58
    1215.8.201261130.981,765.886,54
    1831.8.201271235.353,706.711,53
    1915.9.201281329.307,795.568,49
    2430.9.201291439.445,167.494,56


    By decision v. 25.1.2013, the defendant set the input tax for the disputed period fixed an amount of € 31,296.09; the remainder, ie with regard to the application items 1, 7, 12, 18, 19 and 24, the request for remuneration was rejected on the grounds stated in the annex to the application are not, as required by law, the invoice numbers given on the invoices been registered. In support of the defendant further referred to the one for previous payment period dated 28.9.2012 to the claimant Notice in which already on the improper indication of the invoice number was pointed out. Against this the plaintiff turned with E-Mail v. 8.2.2013, acknowledged the indication (only) the Reference numbers instead of the invoice numbers and stated, inter alia, that in the notification v. 25.1.2013 mentioned v. 28.9.2012 was not served on the applicant and she, the Applicant, therefore had no knowledge of the decision and therefore not in the application as requested by the defendant, the "correct invoice numbers" could register. With letter v. 25.3.2013, the defendant pointed out that the e-mail v. 08/02/2013 filed opposition could not succeed, because it was a proper Input tax refund request mangele. The defendant then pointed to the present Disputed period the opposition with opposition decision v. 7.1.2014 as unfounded back, since the claim filed by the applicant does not meet the legal requirements that Request for remuneration according to the officially prescribed data set containing the indication of the Invoice number must have been provided. Thus, it is missing in one within the Application deadline submitted by 30.9.2013 is the correct pre-tax refund application. With the action brought against this on 29.1.2014 the plaintiff pursues the claim to further Input tax for the disputed period iHv € 40,610.99 and points out that meanwhile, starting with the 4th quarter 2012, the processes in the creation of the Exemption claims have been amended so that now no longer automatically indicate the reference numbers generated from the system in the request for compensation, but these would be replaced by the invoice invoice numbers. Since then they are Invoices of the A-GmbH on the part of the defendant have not been objected.
    For the sake of:
    I. The admissible action is well founded. The contested decision of payment v. 25.1.2013 in the form of the opposition decision v. 7.1.2014 is unlawful and violates the plaintiff in its rights (see § 101 S. 1 FGO), insofar the claim for compensation of the applicant was rejected. The applicant is entitled to the coveted (further) input VAT for the period July to September 2012.
    Entitled to input VAT

    1. The plaintiff is entitled, for the disputed period, to the payment of input tax in the total amount 71.907 € in the special proceedings pursuant to § 18 para. 9 UStG in conjunction with §§ 59 et seq UStDV in each case in valid for the 2012 remuneration period, and thus also the input tax refund with regard to the still contested application items 1, 7, 12, 18, 19, 24 the invoices concerning the A-GmbH. The applicant has an effective request in that regard In particular, the annex to the application with the entry in the disputed invoices (instead of the Invoice number) form-filled a) Pursuant to Section 18 (9) sentence 1 UStG in the version applicable for the year in dispute, the BMF may Approval of the Federal Council on the payment of input tax to resident foreigners Entrepreneurs deviating from § 16 and § 18 paragraphs 1 to 4 UStG by regulation in one regulate special procedures. The author of the regulation in §§ 59 ff. UStDV made use of.
    b) The input tax refund procedure regulated in § 18 (9) UStG in conjunction with §§ 59 ff. UStDV is based to the Community legislation of Council Directive 2008/9 / EC of 02/12/2008 Regulating the refund of VAT in accordance with Directive 2006/112 / EC Member State of refund but taxable persons established in another Member State, AblEU v. 20.2.2008 - L 44/23, hereafter: Directive 2008/9 / EC). According to Article 8 (2) of Directive 2008/9 / EC, the refund application for each invoice to provide certain information. These include: name and full address of the supplier or service provider (point (a), date and number of the invoice (point (d), Basis of assessment and amount of VAT (point (e), nature of the acquired Items and services broken down by the indices referred to in Article 9 (point (h)).
    Scope of the officially prescribed dataset
    c) The German legislator has these provisions under Community law in § 18 (9) sentence 1 UStG and § 61 paragraph 1 UStDV implemented and regulated there that the rest Community - based operators, as in the case of the applicant Compensation application according to officially prescribed data set by remote data transmission via the electronic portal established in the Member State in which the trader is established to the BZSt. Like the legislator in the predecessor regulation to the officially prescribed form Reference (see § 61 para. 1 UStDV idF v 22.9.2005) and in this way the formal The requirements of the Eighth Directive (of 6 December 1979, 79/1072 / EEC, OJ No L 331/1979, 11) has transposed into national law, the legislature is now taking over with the reference to the officially prescribed dataset the formal requirements Directive 2008/9 / EC into national law, albeit only in that of the official extent of the prescribed data set. Because only in so far as the legislature has the Directive incorporated into national law by reference.
    The official data record also includes the date and number of the invoice
    2. According to these specifications, the applicant relied on the alleged claim Compensation claim for the period July to September 2012 within the scope of this pursuant to § 18 Para. 9 sentence 2 no. 2 UStG in conjunction with § 61 para. 2 sent. 1 UStDV dated 30.09.2013, one application deadline proper application for compensation.
    a) The subject of the officially prescribed data set, to which Section 61 (1) UStDV refers is, among other things, an application. In this attachment are the bills for which the Input tax refund is sought, to list in detail. According to Article 8 (2) (d) of the Directive 2008/9 / EC includes "date and number of invoice".
    Specifying the reference number instead of an invoice number meets the requirements a formative application
    Irrespective of whether the German legislator complies with the provision in § 18 (9) UStG in conjunction with § 61 Para. 1 UStDV the individual information required in the dataset, as required by Art. 8 of the Directive 2008/9 / EC is sufficient, is sufficient in the present case the indication of the reference numbers indicated in the disputed invoices at least the requirements for a form - effective application in the VAT refund procedure. Even if according to the "officially prescribed data set" the Specification of the invoice number is required, the incorrect indication of a Invoice number does not invalidate the input tax refund claim. Only if the Statement by the applicant in the application as "empty of content", therefore considered not done could, a missing indication of the required "invoice number" would be accepted and would be an incomplete and thus ineffective application. However, this is not the case here.
    The registration of the invoices in the disputed invoices Reference number instead of the one required by Article 8 (2) (d) of Directive 2008/9 / EC "Number of the invoice" meets the requirements of a form-effective Input tax refund request, since this entry - if one in the reference number no Invoice number in the opinion of the tax authorities (see section 14.5 UStAE) - content incorrect, but not without reference to the required information and thus not "empty".

    Language Switcher

    Please publish modules in offcanvas position.

    Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.