Briefly assessed, not merely reported: the developments that matter for honest businesses — researched weekly at the CJEU and General Court, BFH, BGH, BVerfG, fiscal courts, EPPO and the supreme courts of the Member States, every entry with its source and a defence assessment.
General Court 'Trading 4': whoever controls the transport carries the exempt supply
A Latvian fuel trader supplied goods under excise-duty suspension to intermediaries that resold the same day into third Member States; the authority attributed the transport to the second supply because the first supplier knew of the resale, and spoke of a 'VAT fraud scheme'. The General Court answers in purely objective terms: neither duty suspension, nor the e-AD, nor proof that the goods left the country exempts the first supply 'in itself'; what matters is when the power to dispose was transferred for the second time, assessed under the Herst criteria (para 33). Whether mere notice of the resale defeats the exemption is expressly left open (para 46). — Defence assessment: neutral. No Kittel import into the attribution question; para 33 works directly as a documentation grid for transport responsibility (Incoterms, freight costs, carrier selection, rights of instruction).
EuG, Urt. v. 09.09.2026 — T-614/25, Trading 4, ECLI:EU:T:2026:541 — source
Czech NSS sets a risk-graded due-diligence standard — burden of proof on the authority
An IT trader bought toner and cartridges from a chain with a missing trader; the tax office had warned him months earlier about fraud risks in that product group. The NSS upholds the denial but states the principles that matter to honest traders: denial is the exception, so the authority bears the burden of proving the objective circumstances (para 19); nobody is obliged to buy only from official distributors or at list prices — supplier choice is business autonomy (para 36); register, VAT-ID and invoice checks are elements of commercial prudence whose scope must match the concrete risk level: the more warning signs, the higher the diligence required — without an abstract checklist (paras 40–41). — Defence assessment: negative in outcome, positive in its principles. The most precise Eastern European formulation of a risk-graded due-diligence standard so far — the doctrinal anchor for a tax CMS as a documented, risk-based verification system.
NSS (Tschechien), Urt. v. 03.09.2026 — 22 Afs 57/2026-66, ExaSoft, ECLI:CZ:NSS:2026:22.Afs.57.2026.66 — source
General Court 'Szytelbiecka': no aggregation of successive supplies without a legal link
A Polish entrepreneur donated her business in equal halves to two daughters who intended to contribute it to a partnership; at issue was whether the gift qualified as a non-taxable transfer of a going concern under Art. 19 VAT Directive. — Defence assessment: neutral (methodologically positive). Fiscal in outcome but usable in method: the General Court links successive transactions only where one is a legal condition of the other, never via an 'overall plan' — an argument against the authorities' aggregation of multi-step transaction sequences in supply chains.
EuG, Urt. v. 09.09.2026 — T-366/25, Szytelbiecka, ECLI:EU:T:2026:545 — source
BGH: no confiscation from the individual where only the company was enriched
The Sixth Criminal Panel quashes confiscation orders against a foundation's board member: where the proceeds accrue to a third-party legal entity, §§ 73(1), 73c StGB are "in principle not" applicable against the acting individual; what is required is a finding "going beyond de facto power of disposal" that he himself obtained something altering his own balance sheet — exceptions only where the entity is a mere "formal shell" without asset separation or every inflow is passed on immediately (para 8). — Defence assessment: positive. Directly transferable to managing directors and buyers in supply chains from whom the company's 'saved' VAT is to be confiscated as proceeds of crime (§ 73 StGB alongside liability under § 71 AO): without a finding that they personally obtained something, there is no basis for confiscation.
BGH, Beschl. v. 23.06.2026 — 6 StR 463/25, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:230626B6STR463.25.0; Beschl. v. 19.05.2026 — 4 StR 202/26 — source
BFH autumn docket: retroactive invoices, clawback adjustments, § 42 AO, liability appeals
The BFH's official hearing list adds three supply-chain-relevant cases: V R 6/25 asks whether subsequently issued invoices allow retroactive input-VAT deduction and whether interest must be waived on equitable grounds (Senatex line), V R 18/24 concerns the input-VAT adjustment after a successful insolvency clawback (§ 17 UStG; estate liability), and the First Panel hears two § 42 AO abuse cases on 23 September. — Defence assessment: neutral to positive. V R 6/25 is an opportunity case against invoice formalism as an additional lever of the administration.
BFH, Verhandlungstermine und Entscheidungsvorschau (Stand 10.09.2026) — V R 6/25, V R 18/24, VII R 7/23, I R 11/22 — source
EPPO direct access to Eurofisc and VIES data: EDPS demands tight safeguards
Under the Commission proposal, Eurofisc coordinators would spontaneously forward "any indication of suspected fraud" to the EPPO and OLAF (new Art. 24d of Regulation 904/2010), and both bodies would obtain centralised access for targeted queries on VAT-ID status, trader data, recapitulative statements and IOSS numbers — no express right of access exists today (paras 3, 6–8). — Defence assessment: neutral (warning signal with protective arguments). Supply-chain data of honest businesses (recapitulative statements, VIES) would flow into criminal pre-investigations without any national filter — 'any indication of suspected fraud' is a low transmission threshold.
EDPS, Stellungnahme 1/2026 v. 08.01.2026 zu COM(2025) 685 final (Änderung VO (EU) 904/2010) — source
Netherlands: trader must prove both material and formal input-VAT conditions
On 19 December 2025 the Hoge Raad, relying on the CJEU, held that the trader must prove both the material (Arts 168, 169) and the formal conditions (Art. 178 VAT Directive) of deduction (r.o. 4.3.3); the authority may demand documents beyond the invoice only where "necessary and proportionate" (r.o. 4.3.4, Arcomet Towercranes C-726/23), and formal defects alone do not justify denial where the material conditions can be verified (r.o. 4.3.5, Barlis 06). — Defence assessment: neutral (trend evidence). The Dutch line confirms the trader's de facto burden of proof for input VAT but expressly limits it through Arcomet proportionality and the Barlis priority of substance.
Hof 's-Hertogenbosch, Urt. v. 15.07.2026 — ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2026:1855; Hoge Raad, Urt. v. 19.12.2025 — ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1958 — source
BFH: tax authority need not swear to the completeness of a GDPR access reply
A taxpayer requested access and copies under Art. 15 GDPR from his tax office and then demanded a sworn affirmation that the reply was complete. The Ninth Panel refuses: the GDPR provides no legal basis, the civil-law rules (§§ 259, 260 German Civil Code) cannot be applied by analogy within § 32i Fiscal Code, and a damages action under Art. 82 GDPR remains inadmissible without prior out-of-court assertion. — Defence assessment: negative (limited). Art. 15 GDPR remains the auxiliary tool in carousel cases for obtaining control notices, Eurofisc alerts and audit memos before formal file access; completeness cannot be enforced through it — the access strategy continues to rest on § 364 Fiscal Code, Art. 41(2) Charter and the Glencore line.
BFH, Urt. v. 30.06.2026 — IX R 2/25, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:U.300626.IXR2.25.0 — source
BGH upholds guideline-ratio estimates despite BFH criticism, tightens reasoning requirements
The First Criminal Panel dismisses the appeal on sentencing (17 counts of tax evasion) and explicitly engages with the BFH's doubts about the official guideline-ratio collection (X R 19/21) — yet keeps external benchmarking admissible where no closer method exists (paras 5–8). — Defence assessment: neutral (tending negative). The hoped-for convergence with the BFH line fails to materialise, although the reasoning duties for guideline-ratio estimates are tightened.
BGH, Beschl. v. 13.07.2026 — 1 StR 128/26, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:130726B1STR128.26.0 — source
BGH landmark: binding effect of foreign certificates — broad under EU law, narrow under bilateral treaties
Of three headnotes the third matters here: EU A1 certificates bind broadly because of uniform CJEU interpretation, the Administrative Commission and infringement proceedings as correction mechanisms (Art. 4(3) TEU sincere cooperation); certificates under bilateral third-country treaties bind only unless "manifestly incorrect on the treaty's wording". — Defence assessment: neutral (strategically usable). Not a VAT case, but structurally analogous: the same reasoning (Art. 4(3) TEU, the CJEU's interpretive monopoly) supports the binding effect of VAT-ID confirmations (§ 18e UStG/VIES) and residence certificates in the carousel context.
BGH, Beschl. v. 28.04.2026 — 1 StR 269/25 (BGHSt), ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:280426B1STR269.25.0 — source
BFH: motions to take evidence must be read with their procedural history — no partial "assumed true"
The Tenth Panel sets aside a lower-court judgment for procedural error: motions to take evidence made at the hearing must be read together with prior written pleadings; rejecting them by "assuming the fact true" is permissible only without any qualification. Also in the batch: IX B 34/26 (over-attachment of bank claims remains a case-by-case issue) and V R 35/24 (amended late-filing penalty becomes subject of the pending action under § 68 FGO). — Defence assessment: positive (procedural). The right to have evidence taken in fiscal-court proceedings is, in § 25f/Kittel disputes, the lever against an 'overall assessment' without hearing witnesses (suppliers, carriers, bank staff).
BFH, Beschl. v. 14.08.2026 — X B 28/25, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:B.140826.XB28.25.0 — source
General Court: anti-abuse discretion does not defeat direct effect of the VAT Directive
An Austrian sole trader contributed let real estate to his GmbH; Austria confined the transfer-of-going-concern rule (Art. 19 VAT Directive) to certain income categories. The General Court holds the list of permissible restrictions exhaustive and grants direct effect where a Member State has misused its discretion (paras 43–48). Crucially (paras 45–46): a discretion 'to prevent tax evasion, avoidance or abuse' does not render the provision conditional — the State cannot invoke its restriction against a taxpayer able to prove that he falls within the directive's scope. — Defence assessment: positive. A methodological lever against excessive national anti-abuse implementations: the abuse reservation is no blanket authorisation removing EU-law control of a rule such as § 25f German VAT Act.
EuG, Urt. v. 02.09.2026 — T-413/25, Peckeger, ECLI:EU:T:2026:514 — source
Czech Supreme Administrative Court: police interview notes usable as tax evidence without confrontation
A winery was assessed by estimation on the basis of criminal-investigation seizures, phone data and police notes of informal third-party statements taken in the taxpayer's absence. The NSS holds such notes admissible in tax proceedings even though they could not be read in the criminal trial without the consent of prosecutor and accused; the tax authority need not examine the lawfulness of the criminal evidence-gathering itself. — Defence assessment: negative, strategically valuable. A direct comparator to the Glencore line (C-189/18): where criminal-procedure findings migrate into tax proceedings without any right of confrontation, the right to be heard and access to the file (Arts 41, 47, 48 Charter) are hollowed out.
NSS (Tschechien), Urt. v. 20.08.2026 — 22 Afs 22/2026-43, ECLI:CZ:NSS:2026:22.Afs.22.2026.43 — source
Nuremberg Tax Court: VAT inspection at the adviser's office is no stigma — no declaratory interest
After an input-VAT surplus from a car purchase the tax office conducted a VAT inspection (§ 27b UStG) at the adviser's office, later converted into a special audit. The court denies any declaratory interest: the inspection implies no accusation of tax crime, is general-prevention supervision that any trader must expect, and requires no stricter discretion than an audit order. — Defence assessment: negative. It cuts off two lines of defence that matter in the early phase of carousel cases: the rehabilitation interest against stigmatising inspection measures and proportionality review of the VAT inspection, although § 27b serves in practice as the early carousel trigger.
FG Nürnberg, Urt. v. 05.05.2026 — 2 K 424/23 (BeckRS 2026, 20714) — source
Czech NSS: "serious doubts" suffice — burden of proof for input VAT shifts to the trader
Input VAT denied across a broad range of services, some CZK 6 million plus penalty. Three key propositions of the NSS: supplier-side invoice defects do not exonerate the recipient — he must close the gap with other evidence; the authority need not disprove the supply — 'serious and reasoned doubts' rendering the records implausible suffice; a business partner's refusal to testify counts against the taxpayer. — Defence assessment: negative. A textbook example of the de facto reversal of the burden of proof: the doubt standard plus attribution of third parties' conduct undercuts the EU-law requirement that the authority prove the objective circumstances to the requisite legal standard (Mahagében and Dávid C-80/11 and C-142/11; Aquila C-512/21 para 52).
NSS (Tschechien), Urt. v. 20.08.2026 — 9 Afs 45/2025-39, NEWCOMMER, ECLI:CZ:NSS:2026:9.Afs.45.2025.39 — source
EU General Court order UNIX: no input VAT denial without proof — no-loss chain matters
The EU General Court has clarified in a Hungarian case: where goods were actually delivered and every link in the chain declared and paid its VAT, input VAT deduction may not be denied merely because the authority considers the invoicing chain wrongly composed. The tax administration must prove to the requisite legal standard that the trader actively participated in fraud or knew or should have known of it. — Defence assessment: positive. A double yield: the 'no loss to the treasury' reasoning in the operative part supports the excess-taxation line and an EU-law-conforming reduction of § 25f UStG in neutral chains, and the burden-of-proof formula binds the authority.
EuG, Beschl. v. 30.10.2025 — T-363/25, UNIX (ABl. C/2026/172 v. 12.01.2026) — source
Sec. 25f before both BFH VAT panels: new appeal V R 31/25 on 'should have known'
The admitted appeal against the Münster fiscal court's precious-metals ruling on the 'should have known' standard of sec. 25f VAT Act has been lodged and is pending before the Federal Fiscal Court as V R 31/25 — with the Fifth Senate, not the Eleventh. The first substantive clarification of the input-VAT denial rule is thus pending in both VAT senates in parallel: XI R 3/24 from Thuringia and now V R 31/25 from Münster. — Defence assessment: positive (lever for clarification). The double pendency (XI R 3/24 and V R 31/25) increases the likelihood of a robust clarification of the standard and is from now on a standard citation in every § 25f objection and suspension application (serious doubts, § 69 FGO).
BFH — V R 31/25 (Revision gegen FG Münster, Urt. v. 17.03.2025 — 5 K 694/17 U) neben XI R 3/24 — source
BGH imports the CJEU "wholly artificial arrangement" test into tax crime — no stay under § 396 AO
Where domestic income is routed through an EU-foreign company, the corporate shield falls away in case of a wholly artificial arrangement — the Panel expressly relies on CJEU C-276/22, C-484/19 para 49 and Cadbury Schweppes C-196/04 para 55, listing objective substance criteria (premises, staff, communication means, genuine activity, lived contracts). It also denies any right to a stay under § 396(1) AO at the appeal stage. — Defence assessment: negative (with a positive aspect). EU anti-abuse doctrine migrates further into the criminal panels, and the restrictive handling of § 396 AO entrenches the practice that criminal courts do not await clarification by the fiscal courts — the structural flip side of the debate on the blocking effect of § 25f.
BGH, Beschl. v. 29.04.2026 — 1 StR 172/25, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:290426B1STR172.25.0 — source
Poland's top court keeps denying input VAT — proof of diligence is decisive
Six decisions of Poland's supreme administrative judges within two days confirm input VAT denials in sham-invoice and supply-chain cases; in one case, tax due on the invoice itself plus a limitation period suspended by criminal tax proceedings come on top. — Defence assessment: negative (with value for a tax CMS). The fiscal line continues unbroken; the reasoning of I FSK 1309/23 is now quotable as comparative evidence of the de facto shift of the burden of proof.
NSA (Polen), Urt. v. 07.07.2026 — I FSK 1309/23 (CBOSA-Volltext) und Urteile v. 25./26.08.2026 — source
Hungary's Curia restructures VAT denial: four categories, burden of proof on the State
The Hungarian Supreme Court's guidance text, now analysed in the original, sorts input VAT denial into four categories of descending culpability — from fictitious transactions through artificial arrangements and knowing to merely negligent passive participation in another's fraud. In each category the tax authority must prove both the fraud and the respective state of mind; mere non-payment of duly declared VAT is expressly not fraud. — Defence assessment: positive (structurally, with residual ambivalence). The consistently two-tier burden on the authority (fraud plus level of awareness) and the clear separation of case groups form the most elegant Member State counter-model so far to the German practice of blending the categories.
Kúria (Ungarn), Kollegiumsmeinung 1/2025. (XII. 9.) KK vélemény v. 09.12.2025 — source
EPPO Munich: five arrests in AirPods VAT carousel — electronics trade in focus
At the request of the EPPO's Munich office, five suspected organisers of a VAT carousel involving wireless earbuds were arrested in Czechia; the estimated damage is €20 million, with accounts frozen in Germany as well. The "Echo" investigation has been running for years and has already produced eight convictions — the chain companies operated across six countries, including Germany. — Defence assessment: negative (warning signal with advisory value). EPPO enforcement density in the electronics carousel sector, with German case management, is rising; chain proceedings run on for years.
EPPO, Pressemitteilung v. 26.08.2026 — Investigation „Echo“ (Zentrum München) — source
EU General Court: no EU action against EPPO appeal — remedy lies with national courts
Convicted in Czechia on an EPPO indictment and given a suspended sentence, the defendant sought to challenge the EPPO's appeal — which seeks five to six years of actual imprisonment — before the EU General Court. The Court dismissed the action for manifest lack of jurisdiction without even serving it on the EPPO: lodging an appeal is a procedural act under Art. 42(1) of the EPPO Regulation, reviewable only by national courts. — Defence assessment: negative. The gap in judicial protection before the EU courts against incriminating EPPO procedural acts — here even an appeal seeking a harsher sentence — becomes routine dismissal under the C-328/24 P line.
EuG, Beschl. v. 22.07.2026 — T-272/26, Lovás/EUStA, ECLI:EU:T:2026:485 — source
Lower Saxony fiscal court: criminal defence costs deductible after VAT conviction
A commercial manager had been given a suspended sentence for VAT evasion committed for his employer's benefit — yet the Lower Saxony fiscal court allowed his criminal defence fees as income-related expenses. The accusation arose from his professional conduct; the statutory deduction ban covers only fines and comparable sanctions, not the defence costs themselves. — Defence assessment: positive. The cost flank of VAT criminal defence is strengthened: defence fees remain deductible despite conviction.
Niedersächsisches FG, Urt. v. 14.07.2026 — 13 K 108/25 — source
Federal Court restates estimation rules: stricter standards in tax criminal trials
The First Criminal Panel uses a case of over one million euros in evaded VAT for an almost textbook-style restatement: estimates in criminal tax proceedings are subject to stricter standards than in assessment proceedings — in dubio pro reo, minimum-culpability quantification and a clear hierarchy of methods; tax office or tax investigation estimates may be adopted only after demonstrably independent judicial review. — Defence assessment: positive. It joins the panel's line on the calculation of evaded tax (1 StR 557/25, 510/25, 523/25) and adds the complete estimation grid.
BGH, Beschl. v. 13.07.2026 — 1 StR 267/25, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:130726B1STR267.25.0 — source
Federal Court: EPPO argues VAT appeal — waiver of seized cash cuts confiscation
In a Düsseldorf VAT evasion case, the Federal Court of Justice slashed the confiscation orders against two defendants — in one case from some €926,000 to just over €15,000: an effective waiver of seized cash extinguishes the State's value-substitution claim to that extent. — Defence assessment: positive. The waiver mechanism (§ 73c sentence 1 StGB) is an immediately usable defence lever against the double burden of confiscation and a continuing tax claim.
BGH, Beschl. v. 12.05.2026 — 1 StR 319/25, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:120526B1STR319.25.0 (auf Antrag der Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft) — source
Federal Court of Justice: incomplete tax-loss calculation topples conviction
The First Criminal Panel discontinued one count under sec. 154 Code of Criminal Procedure because the trial court had applied the flat 25% rate to hidden profit distributions while ignoring possible loss offsets — expressly continuing its rulings 1 StR 557/25 and 1 StR 510/25. Within months, a firm line has emerged: even deduction items that "cannot be excluded" render the tax-loss calculation legally defective. — Defence assessment: positive. The line on complete calculation of evaded tax is no longer a single decision but settled panel case law — every incomplete target-actual computation should be challenged systematically.
BGH, Beschl. v. 22.07.2026 — 1 StR 523/25, ECLI:DE:BGH:2026:220726B1STR523.25.0 — source
Federal Fiscal Court asks CJEU: is a remotely operated plant a fixed establishment?
An Austrian entrepreneur operates a largely automated sludge-drying plant in Germany, monitored from her seat, with on-site work done by a subcontractor. The Fifth Senate asks the CJEU whether such a plant is a "fixed establishment" — which determines whether the supplier herself or the customer owes the VAT under the reverse-charge rules. — Defence assessment: neutral (with a positive tendency). The panel's restrictive line protects EU service providers from unexpected domestic VAT liability and supplies arguments in reverse-charge disputes.
BFH, EuGH-Vorlage v. 07.05.2026 — V R 12/24, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:VE.070526.VR12.24.0 (jetzt EuG T-555/26) — source
Federal Fiscal Court: cost recharges without supply trigger VAT, no deduction
A hirer opened its canteen to temporary workers at staff rates and invoiced the staffing company a cost lump sum, which the latter recharged back. The Federal Fiscal Court sees no supply in this mere back-and-forth of charges: no input VAT deduction on the incoming invoices, but VAT owed on the outgoing invoices under sec. 14c(2) VAT Act. — Defence assessment: negative (warning signal). Honest group and contract partners slip into the 'sham invoice' framework this way; every cost recharge should be checked for a genuine supply before invoicing — a core element of a VAT compliance system. Quotable at the same time: sec. 14c VAT is precisely not based on a supply actually made.
BFH, Urt. v. 16.04.2026 — V R 1/25, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:U.160426.VR1.25.0 — source
Confiscation cut from EUR 2.66m to 283k: full target-actual comparison required
Germany's Federal Court of Justice requires a complete target-actual computation instead of broad estimates. A strong lever against excessive confiscation in VAT proceedings.
BGH, Beschl. v. 16.04.2026 — 1 StR 557/25 — source
Constitutional Court halts surrender to Poland over unresolved prison conditions
By interim order, the Federal Constitutional Court barred for six months the surrender of a Polish national under a European Arrest Warrant: the Higher Regional Court of Hamm had approved the transfer subject to detention in specified prisons, although the Polish Ministry of Justice had declined to give exactly that assurance. What needs clarification is whether the court met its duties of inquiry under Art. 4 of the EU Charter. — Defence assessment: positive. The Art. 4 Charter duty-of-inquiry objection acts as a brake on surrender — directly usable in European Arrest Warrant constellations of carousel defendants.
BVerfG, Beschl. v. 11.08.2026 — 2 BvR 1502/26, ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2026:rk20260811.2bvr150226 (einstweilige Anordnung) — source
New EU directive: genuine compliance becomes a mitigating factor
Directive (EU) 2026/1021 (OJ L, 11 May 2026) establishes EU-wide, for corruption offences, that effective, genuinely implemented compliance programmes of legal persons may count as a mitigating circumstance (Art. 16(c)) — recital 29 expressly discounts mere window dressing. It does not directly cover tax offences; under the new Art. 8(2) of the PIF Directive (Art. 36(4)), however, Member States may extend these mitigating grounds to serious cross-border VAT fraud. Reading the same rationale into a VAT CMS under section 25f German VAT Act is our own assessment — but the EU legislature has now supplied the blueprint.
RL (EU) 2026/1021, ber. eucrim v. 11.08.2026 — source
Constitutional Court quashes surrender to Romania: Art. 4 Charter needs real scrutiny
Following last week's interim order on a surrender to Poland, a decision on the merits now follows: the Federal Constitutional Court quashes a Munich court's European Arrest Warrant surrender order to Romania — the review of detention conditions, despite Romanian assurances, fell short of Art. 4 of the EU Charter. — Defence assessment: positive. Together with 2 BvR 1502/26 (Poland) this now forms a robust double line (interim relief plus merits) for blocking surrenders.
BVerfG, Beschl. v. 05.08.2026 — 2 BvR 364/26 — source
EPPO Prague: six indicted over €17.4m import VAT fraud via e-commerce warehouses
The EPPO in Ostrava indicted five individuals and one company: Chinese goods were customs-cleared through import companies only formally registered in Czechia, then notionally supplied VAT-exempt to firms in other Member States — in reality delivered to e-commerce platform logistics centres and sold to consumers across the EU (abuse of customs procedure 42). — Defence assessment: neutral. No new legal proposition, but a warning signal for the e-commerce and import supply chain: customs procedure 42 moves into the enforcement focus next to the classic single-market carousel.
EPPO, Pressemitteilung v. 03.08.2026 (Ostrava/Prag) — source
Input VAT on advisory fees even where the business never traded
Germany's Federal Fiscal Court confirms the broad, neutrality-protected right to deduct: advisory costs to enforce damages for a merely intended activity qualify. A rebuff to narrow nexus requirements.
BFH, Urt. v. 07.05.2026 — V R 15/24, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:U.070526.VR15.24.0 — source
2025 PIF report: 648 EPPO VAT investigations, €43.84bn in estimated damage
The Commission's 37th annual report on the protection of the EU's financial interests counts 648 active VAT-related EPPO investigations at the end of 2025 — about 18% of all cases but almost 65% of the estimated total damage of €43.84bn. Two findings are valuable for affected businesses: the Commission concedes the damage "mostly impact[s] national budgets", and it describes carousel structures as "infiltrating" genuine, operating companies. — Defence assessment: neutral. The damage figure will fuel enforcement rhetoric (negative), yet the report also supplies quotable Commission statements against the presumption of knowledge and against blanket reliance on the Union's financial interests (positive).
Europäische Kommission, 37. PIF-Jahresbericht 2025, COM(2026) 411 final v. 28.07.2026 — source
ViDA taking shape: implementing regulation on OSS/IOSS and own-goods transfers
The Commission has published the first technical follow-up act to the ViDA directive: it adapts the electronic filing formats of the One-Stop-Shop schemes and defines the new special scheme for transfers of own goods, replacing the error-prone call-off stock rules from 1 July 2028. — Defence assessment: neutral. Technical but practically relevant: less exposure in consignment and chain transactions, but new formal duties as potential hooks for objections from 2028.
Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2026/1869 der Kommission v. 27.07.2026, ABl. L v. 28.07.2026 — source
EPPO and OLAF gain direct access to VAT data
Regulation (EU) 2026/1743 opens VIES, CESOP and customs data to investigators — with an express ban on fishing expeditions, strict purpose limitation and audit-log duties. Those safeguards become checkpoints for every defence.
VO (EU) 2026/1743, ABl. v. 27.07.2026 — source
Liability for another's VAT debt: the company assessment must remain contestable
Under Article 47 CFR, a director held liable must be able to challenge the underlying assessment against the company. Directly usable in German secondary-liability proceedings.
EuGH, Urt. v. 16.07.2026 — C-158/25, ECLI:EU:C:2026:591 — source
BFH: no liability of accessories after collection limitation (VII R 18/24)
The exception to accessoriness applies to perpetrators only. For mere aiding, sec. 71 liability ends with collection limitation of the tax debt — a hard new checkpoint in favour of taxpayers.
BFH, Urt. v. 21.04.2026 – VII R 18/24, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:U.210426.VIIR18.24.0 — source
ECJ 'Lin II': effectiveness over lex mitior on limitation (C-280/25)
National courts must disapply more lenient limitation standards where systemic impunity for serious EU fraud looms; final decisions remain untouched.
EuGH, Urt. v. 16.07.2026 – C-280/25 (Lin II) — source
Berlin court: further convictions in luxury-car/mask carousel
Three further convictions on EPPO charges — including the organisation's tax adviser; over EUR 9m confiscated, also from a benefiting company. Enforcement now reaches advisers and companies.
EPPO, Pressemitteilung v. 14.07.2026 (LG Berlin, Urt. v. 10.07.2026) — source
'Huracán': buyers of 'margin cars' targeted — EUR 300m damage
Arrests and searches in DE/PL/NL: enforcement now specifically targets buyers reselling carousel vehicles under the margin scheme. Buying vehicles without documented VAT history is a red flag.
EPPO, Pressemitteilung v. 10.07.2026, Investigation Huracán — source
AG Opinion 'Isolanti Group': limits for VAT settlements (C-308/25)
In the AG's view, a settlement requiring only a percentage of the disputed VAT is incompatible with EU law. Judgment pending — relevant for consensual case resolutions.
GA-Schlussanträge v. 11.06.2026 – C-308/25 (Isolanti Group) — source
General Court T-99/25: EPPO powers strengthened — and judicially reviewable
The eucrim analysis supplies the case number and reasoning behind the General Court ruling already flagged in this radar (R-07): the Court of Auditors could not refuse its officials' testimony in an EPPO investigation by generic reference to "interests of the Union" — a concept to be construed restrictively. The Court also confirms that positions taken in the context of EPPO investigations can be challengeable acts under Art. 263 TFEU. — Defence assessment: neutral. Double-edged: the EPPO's evidence-gathering power grows, yet the confirmed justiciability of acts in the EPPO environment (Art. 263 TFEU) mirrors into judicial-protection arguments for defendants.
EuG, Urt. v. 10.06.2026 — T-99/25, EPPO/Europäischer Rechnungshof (ber. eucrim v. 10.08.2026) — source
EU court control strengthened: testimony refusal annulled
The EU judiciary annuls a refusal to authorise staff testimony vis-a-vis the EPPO — a small but clear signal for equality of arms and judicial control within the EPPO framework.
EuG, Urt. v. 10.06.2026 – T-99/25 — source
'Metallo': further asset recovery in EUR 428m complex
The EPPO secures additional assets in one of the largest ongoing VAT complexes. Asset freezing remains enforcement's fastest sword — and the strongest reason for evidence architecture before the emergency.
EPPO, Pressemitteilung v. 05.06.2026, Investigation Metallo — source
◈ Explore this structure live — infinitely deep
