CJEU rules joint liability complements deduction denial in combating VAT fraud

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

CJEU rules joint liability complements deduction denial in combating VAT fraud

Sponsored by

logo.png
Scales of justice and the EU flag

Fernando Matesanz of Spanish VAT Services examines a judgment confirming that denying input VAT and imposing joint liability may be applied together to combat fraud, provided the principle of proportionality is respected

On July 10 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-276/24. The ruling interprets Article 205 of the VAT Directive in light of the principle of proportionality and, more concretely, clarifies whether a member state may both, and at the same time:

  • Deny a purchaser the right to deduct input VAT because it knew, or should have known, of fraud; and

  • Hold that same purchaser jointly and severally liable for the supplier’s unpaid output VAT.

In very brief terms, the case involves a company that bought motor fuel during 2013 from another company. Subsequent tax inspections uncovered a carousel‐type fraud involving both entities. The supplier was reassessed for output VAT that it never paid (transferring the liability to its counterparty), and the buyer was refused its input tax deduction.

The purchaser argued that denying deduction and enforcing joint liability for the same transaction offends the principles of neutrality and equal treatment, effectively forcing the purchaser to “pay VAT on the same transaction three times”: once to the supplier, again when deduction is refused, and when the supplier’s tax debt is reclaimed from the purchaser.

Analysis of the case

The preliminary question referred to the court sought to clarify whether Article 205 of the VAT Directive, interpreted in light of the principle of proportionality, allows a national practice under which the recipient of a supply is held jointly liable for the supplier’s VAT, even when that recipient has already been denied the right to deduct input VAT due to its involvement (whether intentional or negligent) in fraud.

Article 205 empowers member states to impose joint liability where a person knew, or ought to have known, that VAT linked to the relevant transaction, or a prior/subsequent one, would go unpaid. Such liability is acceptable as long as the presumptions can be challenged and the principle of proportionality is respected.

Following settled case law from the CJEU, the right to deduct input VAT must be refused not only to fraudsters but also to traders who, aware of the fraud, facilitate it; they are deemed accomplices, irrespective of any profit obtained. In such circumstances, one cannot rely on neutrality to claim the deduction.

The decisive issue was whether the simultaneous application of both measures (denial of input VAT and imposition of joint liability) goes far beyond what is necessary to secure tax revenue. If this were the case, the measure would not respect the principle of proportionality.

The court held that the directive does not prevent tax authorities from applying both measures to the same person, provided proportionality is respected. Where the purchaser knew, or should have known, of fraud, dual application is legitimate.

Denying deduction fights fraud by removing a benefit to the dishonest trader, whereas joint liability ensures efficient collection by shifting the unpaid tax to another actor involved in the fraudulent chain. The measures pursue “distinct and complementary” aims. Requiring authorities to choose would undermine neutrality and revenue protection.

If taxable persons denied deduction could never be held jointly liable, only traders acting in good faith (who retain their deduction) could be pursued for the supplier’s debt, meaning bad-faith actors would enjoy a more favourable treatment. Such a result would be contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

The parties involved even argued that the simultaneous application of these measures could result in a form of unjust enrichment. The court, however, without further explanation, states that the tax authorities are merely applying the provisions of the law, without considering that, in some cases, these measures might lead to a surplus of VAT remaining with the treasury.

Consequently, according to the court’s reasoning, Article 205 of the VAT Directive does not ban a national practice that cumulatively denies deduction and imposes joint liability on a purchaser who knew, or should have known, of fraud.

Implications of the CJEU ruling

This judgment confirms and extends the CJEU’s anti-fraud jurisprudence. One aspect is particularly relevant from this case: cumulative remedies are lawful. Tax administrations may both refuse deduction and pursue joint liability. This may serve to deter deliberate participation in fraud.

The ruling strikes a pragmatic balance. It reinforces the message that professional operators must carry out robust supplier checks (especially when payments are routed through foreign accounts, which happened in this case). At the same time, it preserves a proportionality safeguard by requiring proof (or irrefutable presumptions) of knowledge.

Failure to detect fraud risks both loss of deduction and exposure to the supplier’s tax debt. From a policy point of view, the court supports giving national authorities a range of tools they can use flexibly to ensure compliance with existing VAT rules and to prevent fraud. This helps to protect the integrity of the EU VAT system without adding new rules to the directive.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A ‘quiet revolution’ in HMRC’s compliance strategy has caused Adam Craggs to rethink how to advise clients, he tells ITR
If the Reform leader becomes UK prime minister then he may follow the direction of the US in at least one significant way
Trump declared a new national emergency in issuing the order; in other news, Grant Thornton Germany is up for sale and the subject of interest from both its UK and US counterparts
The judgment, which saw Denmark's Supreme Court rely on OECD TP guidance, sets aside more than 15 years of consistent administrative practice, experts have told ITR
Belgium’s new coalition government has gone ahead with a new exit tax regime that could land it in the courts
Brazil’s government has not officially framed the bill as a countermeasure amid trade tensions with the US, but the move is being considered as part of Brazil’s strategic response, one expert tells ITR
Understanding India’s income tax landscape can help charities ensure compliance, optimise tax benefits, and enhance their impact, writes Raghav Bajaj of Khaitan & Co
Tax advisers in Brazil are rising above the country’s notoriously complex tax system to deliver high-quality advisory services, ITR’s exclusive in-house data reveals
ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
Gift this article