Introduction

The Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in Case C-442/22, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Lublinie, has ruled on the basis of Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the Common System of Value Added Tax (hereinafter the “VAT Directive”), that employees may be declared personally responsible to pay amounts of VAT indicated on invoices fraudulently created and issued by them without their employer’s knowledge or consent.

Background of the Case

This case originated following a tax audit undertaken by the Polish Tax Authorities in respect of a company which operated a retail business for the sale of fuel at a petrol station (the “Company”) from 2001 until 2014. An employee of the Company (the “Employee”) was entrusted with the management of the operation of the Company during such period, and their duties included the management of staff at the petrol station and the issuing of invoices to customers.

It transpired that such invoices had indicated VAT amounts that did not reflect the actual sales made by the Company’s retail business. Between January 2010 and April 2014, approximately 1,700 invoices (totalling approximately EUR 320,000) had been issued in the name of the Company without its consent or knowledge. Such invoices were sold, for the Employee’s own account, to unrelated third-party entities, whereby such third-party entities sought, in turn, to fraudulently obtain an undue deduction of the VAT so indicated in the false invoices.

Notably, the VAT amounts indicated were not recorded in the Company’s accounts, nor were they accounted for in the Company’s tax returns and, as a result, the corresponding VAT was not paid into the Polish state budget. The Polish Tax Authorities, following the conclusion of the tax audit for this period, issued a decision wherein it determined the VAT liability for the above invoices as being a liability of the Company in whose name such fraudulent invoices were issued. Such decision was challenged by the Company before the Polish National Courts, and the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (hereinafter “PSAC”) at appeal stage opted to stay proceedings so as to request a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on this matter.

The Applicable Law

The VAT Directive, in Article 9, defines a “taxable person” for VAT purposes, as being any person who independently carries out in any place any economic, whatever the purpose or results of that activity. Additionally, Article 203 of the VAT Directive establishes that VAT shall be payable by any person who enters the VAT on an invoice.

Moreover, Article 205 of the VAT Directive allows EU Member States the option, when implementing their own domestic VAT laws, to provide that in certain circumstances another person (that is, other than the taxable person concerned) may be jointly and severally liable for the payment of VAT to the Tax Authorities of the relevant Member State. The Polish law on the tax on goods and services avails of this option, and states that where (i) a legal person; (ii) an unincorporated organisational unit, or; (iii) a natural person issues an invoice in which the amount of tax is shown, they are, in certain circumstances, obliged to pay such tax on goods or services.

Conflicting Domestic Interpretation

It transpired during the course of proceedings that the Polish Courts had yet to fully settle on a singular interpretation of the domestic transposition of Article 203 and Article 205 of the VAT Directive. Of the two prevailing domestic interpretations of the provision cited above, the first suggests that an employer should be held liable for the VAT indicated on the false invoices, regardless of the fact that it was the employee who issued them, thus emphasising that the employer should assume the risks associated with the obligations of its business and with selecting its employees and, ultimately, that it should bear the risk for any fraudulent activities carried out by them.

On the other hand, another interpretation suggests that the fraudulent employee should be considered “the person who entered the VAT on the invoices” and, therefore, should be held liable for the VAT payable, therefore, alternatively emphasising the importance of individual responsibility and insisting that employers should not automatically be held accountable for the fraudulent actions and misconduct of employees.

The Questions referred to the CJEU

The PSAC thus referred two key questions to the CJEU.

The First Question, concerning Article 203 and Article 205 of the VAT Directive, asks whether liability to pay the VAT so indicated on the abovementioned fraudulent invoices falls to:

  1. The Company, being a taxable person for VAT purposes and whose details were (fraudulently) used to complete such invoices, or;
  2. The fraudulent employee who (unlawfully) entered the VAT on such invoice using the employer’s details.

Secondly, PSAC asked the CJEU whether it was relevant to the matter at hand that the board of management of the Employer, for the purposes of the VAT Directive, had failed to exercise sufficient due diligence in its supervision of the Employee’s activities.

Findings of the Court

The CJEU, upon consideration of questions posed by PSAC, noted from the outset that for Article 203 to be applicable to the circumstances at hand, an “issuer of an invoice” indicating an amount of VAT should be responsible for such amount where there is a risk of a loss of tax revenue, irrespective of any fault or misconduct.

Secondly, as Article 203 makes use of the phrase “any person”, the CJEU declared that such provision may, in theory, even capture natural persons who are not taxable persons for VAT purposes, which, in this case, would include the Employee.

Thirdly, the CJEU held that it would be incorrect, on the basis of Article 203, to find against an Employer whose identity has been misappropriated by a third-party for the purposes of fraud, however, the CJEU went on to declare that the VAT liability would only shift away from the Employer in those circumstances where;

  1. The identity of the fraudulent employee/s is known to the investigating tax authority; and
  2. The Employer exercised reasonable diligence in monitoring the Employee’s conduct.

Thus, the CJEU clarified that an employer would not be automatically liable for the payment of VAT indicated on false invoices, provided that they upheld their inherent duty as taxable persons for VAT purposes to prevent or mitigate (to the extent possible) risks of losses of VAT revenue through tax fraud. It held that such duty extends to include;

  1. a duty of care by an employer to its employee/s, particularly when the employee is responsible for issuing invoices showing VAT in the name of / on behalf of the employer, and;
  2. that when there are indications of fraud, a reasonable trader should make inquiries about the other trader from whom they intend to purchase goods or services to ascertain their trustworthiness.

In this instance, the CJEU, contrary to the Opinion of Advocate General Kolkott, found that the Employer had clearly neglected their duty to supervise and monitor the Employee’s activities, implying to the PSAC that the liability for the payment of the VAT indicated in the false invoices had not shifted to the fraudulent Employee, but rather, remained with the Employer as a taxable person for VAT purposes.

Concluding Remarks

The CJEU, in Case C-442/22, has provided important guidance on the interpretation of the VAT Directive for EU Member States by clarifying the allocation of responsibility in respect of unlawful practices concerning the issuing of fraudulent invoices designed to circumvent the payment of VAT into the state budget. The ruling emphasizes the importance of individual accountability while recognizing the role of employers in exercising reasonable diligence in monitoring their employees’ actions.

Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report. This article was first published in The Malta Independent on 20/03/2024.

Author: Benjamin Farrugia (Trainee Advocate, Ganado Advocates)

'Investment Funds & Asset Management' Related News Articles

01
The INSIGHT Interview: Herald Bonnici, Secretary General, Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (PEVCA)
FinanceMalta

by FinanceMalta

17th June 2024

DORA Trifecta – Three delegated regulations adopted by the Commission
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

23rd April 2024

ESG
GRC in Malta: Governance and ESG – Navigating the Intersection between Profit and Purpose
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

5th April 2024

BOV OFFERS MAPFRE MSV Life CAPITAL GUARANTEED AND INCOME PLANS
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

5th March 2024

Stable Return Fund of SCM Sicav plc was selected among the best flexible funds at the Diaman Awards
Solutions Capital Management SICAV p.l.c.

by Solutions Capital Management SICAV p.l.c.

4th March 2024

ESMA Consults on the ‘Classification of Crypto-Assets as Financial Instruments’ and ‘Reverse Solicitation’ under MiCA
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

23rd February 2024

Agreement reached on the proposed Anti-Money Laundering Regulation and Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

19th February 2024

MFSA Circular on the Newly Published Accountancy Profession Regulations, 2023 (Legal Notice 299 of 2023)
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

22nd January 2024

The Guaranteed Capital & Income Plan 2026 II now available from all BOV Branches, Investment Centres and Private Banking
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

6th September 2023

New Guidance: Practical Guidance for Economic Operators: Detecting and Preventing Sanctions Evasion and Circumvention in Trade
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

16th August 2023

ESG
ESG is here to stay as both the Asset Wealth Management and the policymakers seem set on an irreversible course of action
Zeta

by Zeta

26th July 2023

BOV Asset Management Limited launches the Global Multi-Asset Thematic 60 Fund managed by Fidelity International
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

7th May 2023

INFOCREDIT GROUP AMONG THE SPONSORS OF MALTA FINANCIAL CRIME COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE 2023
Infocredit Group Limited

by Infocredit Group Limited

3rd May 2023

The CJEU clarifies key issues on the adoption of enforcement measures in respect of sanctioned entities
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

4th January 2023

BOV Asset Management named official representative of Fidelity International in Malta
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

25th November 2022

High calibre international speakers for FinanceMalta’s 15th Annual Conference
FinanceMalta

by FinanceMalta

28th October 2022

CJEU clarifies when dividend payments by fund managers must comply with the sound remuneration principles under AIFMD and UCITS Directive
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

14th October 2022

New EU Cross-Border Distribution of Funds Rules: Key Considerations for UCITS and AIFs and their Asset Managers
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

20th January 2022

ESMA Guidelines on the application of the appropriateness assessment and execution-only requirements under MiFID II
Ganado Advocates

by Ganado Advocates

20th January 2022

SAXO Bank Chief Economist optimistic for recovery in Malta’s Trade, Transport and Tourism
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

25th May 2021

The future of Trade, Transport and Tourism in Malta – a business webinar by BOV, Saxo Bank and Malta Maritime Forum
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

17th May 2021

What to expect: BOV, Malta Chamber and Saxo Bank debate on the future of businesses
Bank of Valletta

by Bank of Valletta

29th September 2020