Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Omesso versamento iva e responsabilità in solido: alcune considerazioni a margine di una recente (e non del tutto convincente) sentenza della CGUE

Translated title of the contribution: Failure to pay VAT and joint liability: some considerations in the margins of a recent (and not entirely convincing) decision of the CJEU

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

[Autom. eng. transl.] The European Court of Justice recently ruled on i boundaries of applicability of art. 205 of the VAT directive. More precisely, the Union Judges they stated that the provision in question should not be considered an obstacle to legislation national under which the jointly liable must pay, in addition to the amount of the value added tax (VAT) not paid by the debtor of this tax, the interest of late payment due by the latter on this amount. Well, the conclusions formulated by the College European would seem to lend themselves to at least two critical considerations - descendants from an inadequate enhancement of the principle of proportionality and an incorrect, because reductive, legal qualification of the default interest function - both on equal consideration on the one hand relating to the framing of joint and several liability within the boundaries of which it would have had to frame the case in question, on the other hand to the attribution of the right of reimbursement where the unpaid tax was then paid both by the original debtor and by the person responsible in solid.
Translated title of the contributionFailure to pay VAT and joint liability: some considerations in the margins of a recent (and not entirely convincing) decision of the CJEU
Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)1829-1861
Number of pages33
JournalDIRITTO E PRATICA TRIBUTARIA INTERNAZIONALE
VolumeVOL. XVIII-4
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Keywords

  • IVA

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Failure to pay VAT and joint liability: some considerations in the margins of a recent (and not entirely convincing) decision of the CJEU'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this