Luxembourg: CJEU clarifies rules on automatic forfeiture of VAT refund claims

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

Luxembourg: CJEU clarifies rules on automatic forfeiture of VAT refund claims

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_deloitte.png
ib-luxembourg.jpg

Michel Lambion and Christian Deglas of Deloitte Luxembourg analyse a CJEU decision which rules that the one month deadline for responding to a request for information when seeking a VAT refund is not mandatory.

On May 2 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that a late response to a request for information from an EU member state from which a non-established (EU) taxpayer is requesting a VAT refund does not affect the taxpayer's right to regularise its situation with the national competent authorities (C-133/18).

Taxpayers often incur VAT in member states where they do not have a VAT establishment for costs such as hotels or other accommodation, restaurants, cabs or other forms of transport, seminars, training or fairs and attendance at similar events. The EU VAT Directive (EU directive 2008/09/EC) provides that such VAT can be reclaimed via the website of the taxpayer's national VAT authorities before September 30 of the year following the refund period, i.e. the period in which the VAT was incurred.

The directive also provides that the VAT authorities of the member states from which the taxpayer is reclaiming VAT may request additional information, in particular from the taxpayer or from the competent authorities of the member state where the taxpayer is established. Article 20(2) of the directive requires that a response to an information request must be submitted within one month from the date the request is received.

The case before the CJEU involved a German company that incurred French VAT on some of its costs and submitted a refund claim. The French VAT authorities requested additional information but the company failed to respond within the one-month period. As a result, the French tax authorities denied the refund. The German company appealed the case to the French court, which referred the case to the CJEU.

The CJEU held that the one-month period is not a mandatory time limit for the taxpayer and that failure to respond within this period should not result in the automatic forfeiture of the right to a VAT refund. The taxpayer should be given the opportunity to regularise its VAT refund application by filing an appeal with the competent domestic authority or court and providing additional information to establish the existence of the right to a VAT refund.

The CJEU based its decision on various factors, including the fact that the tax authorities may request information from a third party and that a late response in that case may not affect the rights of the taxpayer. The CJEU also noted that Article 20(2), unlike other provisions in the VAT Directive, does not set time limits on responding to information requests and, for example, does not include wording such as "not later than".

This decision contrasts with a 2012 decision of the CJEU, in which it held that the limit for submitting a VAT refund application (September 30 of the calendar year following the refund period) is a mandatory limit. Failure to comply with the deadline leads to the automatic forfeiture of the right to a refund.

The May 2 decision potentially opens opportunities for affected taxpayers, but also should encourage taxpayers to familiarise themselves with the provisions of the VAT directives and regulations that include deadlines.

Deloitte Luxembourg

E: cdeglas@deloitte.lu and milambion@deloitte.lu

W: www.deloitte.lu

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
In a post on X, Scott Bessent urged dissenting countries to the US/OECD side-by-side arrangement to ‘join the consensus’ to get a deal over the line
A new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026 with more than 1,400 lawyers and 20 offices
As ITR’s exclusive data uncovers in-house dissatisfaction with case management, advisers cite Italy’s arcane tax rules
The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Taylor Wessing, whose most recent UK revenues were £283.7m, would become part of a £1.23bn firm post combination
China and a clutch of EU nations have voiced dissent after Estonia shot down the US side-by-side deal; in other news, HMRC has awarded companies contracts to help close the tax gap
An EY survey of almost 2,000 tax leaders also found that only 49% of respondents feel ‘highly prepared’ to manage an anticipated surge of disputes
Gift this article