Taxable persons’ right to deduct input VAT is an integral part of the VAT system and may in principle not be limited. Carousel schemes deprive the Member States a great deal of tax revenue, investigations show that up to EUR 100 billion disap-pear every year. In order to stop these trading arrangements and reduce the big amount of tax revenue which disappears every year, some Member States would like to deny traders involved in carousel frauds the right to deduct the input VAT. It exist different opinions regarding taxable persons’ ability to deduct input VAT when involved in carousel frauds. The ECJ has given judgements in three interest-ing cases dealing with the right to deduct in case of carousel fraud. In the Optigen case, it was established that taxable persons who do not know or have any reason to believe that they are involved in a carousel fraud cannot be denied the right to deduct the input VAT. In the FTI case, it was concluded that taxable persons in-volved in carousel frauds can be jointly and severally liable to pay the VAT to-gether with the person, actually liable to pay the VAT. A precondition for making a taxable person jointly and severally liable is that the taxable person has to be aware or should have been aware that the transaction made, was involved in such a scheme. If the taxable person did not know or had no reason to suspect this, he cannot be made jointly and severally liable. The ruling in the Kittel case confirms the Optigen judgement as well as concludes that when a taxable person is aware or should have been aware that he is involved in a carousel scheme, he is not enti-tled to deduct the input VAT. If this is the case, it is possible for the tax authori-ties in the different Member States to deny taxable persons this right as well as claim a refund. These judgements clarify when the national tax authorities can deny a taxable per-son the right to deduct input VAT when the transactions are made in a chain of fraud. However, another problem occurred, it is up to the national courts to de-cide when a taxable person should be aware that he is involved in a carousel fraud. This decision shall be based upon objective factors, no guidelines or any other help as to what these objective factors should consist of have been published. This creates an interpretation gap for the national courts followed by the risk of having an outcome with different interpretations from the courts in the Member States. / Den avdragsrätt som beskattningsbara personer besitter utgör en oskiljaktig del av mervärdesskattesystemet och kan därför i princip inte inskränkas. Karusellhandel berövar medlemsstaterna på stora mängder skatteinkomster. Olika undersökning-ar visar att upp till 100 miljarder euro försvinner varje år till följd av karusellbe-drägerier. Vissa medlemsstater vill kunna neka avdragsrätt för beskattningsbara personer som är inblandade i olika typer av karusellhandel som ett försök att stoppa dessa arrangemang och för att minska de skatteintäkter som årligen förlo-ras. Det finns olika åsikter om möjligheten att neka avdragsrätt för beskattningsbara personer involverade i karusellhandel. EG-domstolen har avkunnat domar i tre in-tressanta mål som rör avdragsrätten vid karusellhandel. I Optigen målet fastställ-des att beskattningsbara personer som inte vet eller har någon anledning att miss-tänka att de är inblandade i en karusellhandel inte kan bli nekade att dra av den in-gående mervärdesskatten. I FTI målet drogs slutsatsen att beskattningsbara per-soner involverade i karusellhandel kan bli solidariskt betalningsansvariga för sälja-rens mervärdesskatteskuld. Förutsättningen för att sådant ansvar skall kunna åläg-gas är att den beskattningsbara personen visste eller hade skälig anledning att misstänka att han var involverad i ett karusellbedrägeri. Däremot kan en beskatt-ningsbar person som inte visste eller hade skälig anledning att misstänka att han var inblandad i ett karusellbedrägeri inte åläggas solidariskt betalningsansvar. Do-men i Kittel målet bekräftar Optigen domen samtidigt som den fastställer att be-skattningsbara personer som medvetet eller som haft skälig anledning att misstän-ka att han är inblandad i ett karusellbedrägeri kan förlora avdragsrätten. Om så är fallet kan följaktligen de nationella skattemyndigheterna neka avdragsrätt för en beskattningsbar person samt kräva en återbetalning av redan utbetalad mervärdes-skatt. Dessa domar klarlägger när de nationella skattemyndigheterna kan neka en be-skattningsbar person avdragsrätten när en transaktion är genomförd i samband med ett karusellbedrägeri. Ett annat problem uppstod dock eftersom det är upp till de nationella domstolarna att bestämma när en beskattningsbar person skall ha skälig anledning att misstänka att han är involverad i ett karusellbedrägeri. Detta beslut ska baseras på objektiva faktorer, det finns emellertid inga riktlinjer eller annan hjälp att ta till för att bestämma vad dessa objektiva faktorer skall vara. Det-ta skapar ett tolkningsproblem för de nationella domstolarna, vilket kan resultera i olika tolkningar mellan medlemsstaterna.

<p>Taxable persons’ right to deduct input VAT is an integral part of the VAT system and may in principle not be limited. Carousel schemes deprive the Member States a great deal of tax revenue, investigations show that up to EUR 100 billion disap-pear every year. In order to stop these trading arrangements and reduce the big amount of tax revenue which disappears every year, some Member States would like to deny traders involved in carousel frauds the right to deduct the input VAT.</p><p>It exist different opinions regarding taxable persons’ ability to deduct input VAT when involved in carousel frauds. The ECJ has given judgements in three interest-ing cases dealing with the right to deduct in case of carousel fraud. In the Optigen case, it was established that taxable persons who do not know or have any reason to believe that they are involved in a carousel fraud cannot be denied the right to deduct the input VAT. In the FTI case, it was concluded that taxable persons in-volved in carousel frauds can be jointly and severally liable to pay the VAT to-gether with the person, actually liable to pay the VAT. A precondition for making a taxable person jointly and severally liable is that the taxable person has to be aware or should have been aware that the transaction made, was involved in such a scheme. If the taxable person did not know or had no reason to suspect this, he cannot be made jointly and severally liable. The ruling in the Kittel case confirms the Optigen judgement as well as concludes that when a taxable person is aware or should have been aware that he is involved in a carousel scheme, he is not enti-tled to deduct the input VAT. If this is the case, it is possible for the tax authori-ties in the different Member States to deny taxable persons this right as well as claim a refund.</p><p>These judgements clarify when the national tax authorities can deny a taxable per-son the right to deduct input VAT when the transactions are made in a chain of fraud. However, another problem occurred, it is up to the national courts to de-cide when a taxable person should be aware that he is involved in a carousel fraud. This decision shall be based upon objective factors, no guidelines or any other help as to what these objective factors should consist of have been published. This creates an interpretation gap for the national courts followed by the risk of having an outcome with different interpretations from the courts in the Member States.</p> / <p>Den avdragsrätt som beskattningsbara personer besitter utgör en oskiljaktig del av mervärdesskattesystemet och kan därför i princip inte inskränkas. Karusellhandel berövar medlemsstaterna på stora mängder skatteinkomster. Olika undersökning-ar visar att upp till 100 miljarder euro försvinner varje år till följd av karusellbe-drägerier. Vissa medlemsstater vill kunna neka avdragsrätt för beskattningsbara personer som är inblandade i olika typer av karusellhandel som ett försök att stoppa dessa arrangemang och för att minska de skatteintäkter som årligen förlo-ras.</p><p>Det finns olika åsikter om möjligheten att neka avdragsrätt för beskattningsbara personer involverade i karusellhandel. EG-domstolen har avkunnat domar i tre in-tressanta mål som rör avdragsrätten vid karusellhandel. I Optigen målet fastställ-des att beskattningsbara personer som inte vet eller har någon anledning att miss-tänka att de är inblandade i en karusellhandel inte kan bli nekade att dra av den in-gående mervärdesskatten. I FTI målet drogs slutsatsen att beskattningsbara per-soner involverade i karusellhandel kan bli solidariskt betalningsansvariga för sälja-rens mervärdesskatteskuld. Förutsättningen för att sådant ansvar skall kunna åläg-gas är att den beskattningsbara personen visste eller hade skälig anledning att misstänka att han var involverad i ett karusellbedrägeri. Däremot kan en beskatt-ningsbar person som inte visste eller hade skälig anledning att misstänka att han var inblandad i ett karusellbedrägeri inte åläggas solidariskt betalningsansvar. Do-men i Kittel målet bekräftar Optigen domen samtidigt som den fastställer att be-skattningsbara personer som medvetet eller som haft skälig anledning att misstän-ka att han är inblandad i ett karusellbedrägeri kan förlora avdragsrätten. Om så är fallet kan följaktligen de nationella skattemyndigheterna neka avdragsrätt för en beskattningsbar person samt kräva en återbetalning av redan utbetalad mervärdes-skatt.</p><p>Dessa domar klarlägger när de nationella skattemyndigheterna kan neka en be-skattningsbar person avdragsrätten när en transaktion är genomförd i samband med ett karusellbedrägeri. Ett annat problem uppstod dock eftersom det är upp till de nationella domstolarna att bestämma när en beskattningsbar person skall ha skälig anledning att misstänka att han är involverad i ett karusellbedrägeri. Detta beslut ska baseras på objektiva faktorer, det finns emellertid inga riktlinjer eller annan hjälp att ta till för att bestämma vad dessa objektiva faktorer skall vara. Det-ta skapar ett tolkningsproblem för de nationella domstolarna, vilket kan resultera i olika tolkningar mellan medlemsstaterna.</p>

This dissertation is dedicated to tax fraud in the area of VAT (Value Added Tax). First of all, VAT terms are primarily defined according to current VAT law and also with respect to the harmonization of this tax in the European Union. The next section focuses on the VAT authority and individual constituents which contribute to the tax authority, as well as compliance with its requirements. The main part of the dissertation is dedicated to the forms of tax evasion most frequently practiced in the Czech Republic. The most widespread tax fraud, carousel fraud, is explained and described with the help of diagrams in a separate section. This matter is followed by the issue of the ways in which tax fraud is being prevented, the means of which are examined individually. The process of VAT collections in the federal budget is analyzed, as is the growth of VAT in connection with that of the GNP, in the second half of the dissertation. Subsequently, there is an analysis of the growth of VAT due to higher tax rates, and as a result of the introduction of more efficient tax collection procedures for added value and the implementation of different measures against tax fraud. The analyses are followed by potential procedures and remarks which could lead to a further reduction of criminal activity in this tax area.

This diploma thesis focuses on value added tax which is an important part of the tax systems of many countries around the world. In the countries of European Union is this tax compulsory. The main target of this work is to describe the origin of value added tax, the principle of its functioning and its legislation not only in the Czech Republic but also in the European Union. Furthermore, this thesis focuses on the harmonization of value added tax in the European Union, its development and differences in the use of value added tax between the Member States. Finally, this work deals with tax fraud, which threaten the value added tax in particular so-called Carousel Fraud. It describes the factors that enable the creation of tax fraud and tries to answer the question whether the reverse charge mechanism could eliminate the tax fraud. It also makes efforts to find appropriate solutions to the problem of tax fraud.

This dissertation titled Value added tax evasion through chain and carousel frauds and their reflection in judicial decisions pursues a very actual topic. The main part of this dissertation depictss the tax evasions, primarily a description and explanation of structures of carousel and chain groups, which are participating in the tax evasions in the sphere of the value added tax most frequently. This dissertation submits also some schemes serving for better understanding operating and organization of these bussiness structures, which are taking part in these illegal activities. The next chapter focuses on the judicial decisions, mainly those of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The role of a judicial authority is inalienable in this sphere, because it helps to form a legislation, and a mandatory interpretation of an unclear or ambiguous terms, which are very often is very importanr too. Mainly, the work of the Court of Justice of the European Union is a key for the interpretation of terms of the EU law. Regarding national differences it is necessary to unify the interpretation of the EU law so much, that the functioning of the inner market of the European Union will not be endangered. In the last chapter the dissertation...

This diploma thesis is focused on the analysis of specific type of Value Added Tax fraud called carousel fraud. The main object is to analyse and quantify tax fraud impact specifically oriented to VAT area, i.e. carousel fraud, and suggest the way of prevention which prevent its emergence and expansion in domestic economy. In the theoretical part the information about VAT, the Czech Law on Value Added Tax, EU directive on the common system of Value Added Tax and carousel fraud is described and furthermore, the losses to carousel fraud are mentioned. The practical part is applied to analysis of profit from carousel fraud as a whole and profits of individual participants in carousel fraud, analysis of the Court of Justice of the European Union judgements and the Supreme Administrativ Court of the Czech Republic judgements and carousel fraud prevention in the EU and at home.

The thesis focuses on the situation when the carousel structure is misused for illegal activities, specifically fraud in the system of value added tax, and thus brings the term carousel fraud into life. The main objective of this thesis is to understand the issue of fraud on the value added tax, process and analyze the impact of carousel fraud and try to find possible solutions to reduce this fraud, or possibly eliminate it. This is a current issue of considerable importance. Its timeliness has been evident in legislative activity in recent years, and currently solved cases. The importance of the problem is eventually illustrated by the value of both the volume of VAT in the tax collection and also the amount of tax arrears arising from carousel fraud. The thesis offers a description of the general characteristics and design of carousel fraud, practical examples how the fraud is performed in practice, and information about the legislation and case law associated with the fraud as such and what the possible defense is that the managing authorities can apply in the fight against carousel VAT fraud, while the question of whether the carousel fraud can be completely eliminated is also considered.

This final thesis deals with introduction of reverse charge mechanism of value added tax. The current system of value added tax has weaknesses, including carousel fraud, negative impact on cash flow of businesses and complicated rules to collect and manage the tax. Reverse charge mechanism is considered as a solution of existing weaknesses of current system. Although this regime is able to solve the mentioned weaknesses, it also has some disadvantages. Especially, it is a negative impact on cash flow of state budget which is concretely quantified in this final thesis. Other problems of introduction of reverse charge mechanism include concentration of the whole tax with the last tax payer, issues at retail sales where tax payers and non-payers exist and minor complications in the transition to the new system. For all the negatives this thesis is trying to find solutions to eliminate or reduce them. Finally, reverse charge mechanism is compared with sales tax as reverse charge mechanism is often incorrectly equated with this type of tax.

Mervärdesskattebedrägerier inom den gemenskapsinterna handeln är idag ett utbrett problem. I och med den inre marknadens framväxt och det gemensamma mervärdesskattesystemets struktur har nya former av mervärdesskattebedrägerier uppstått. Då den inre marknaden öppnades 1993 togs den fysiska tullkontrollen bort och kvar återstod endast en administrativ kontroll. Till dess att en fullständig harmonisering kan genomföras på mervärdesskatteområdet tillämpas destinationslandsprincipen på gemenskapsintern handel mellan näringsidkare. För att undvika dubbelbeskattning har regler om gemenskapsinterna förvärv framtagits. Dessa innebär att köparen beskattas i sitt hemland och att säljaren undantas från skatteplikt i sitt hemland. En form av mervärdesskattebedrägeri som utnyttjar mervärdesskattesystemet och bristerna i informationsutbytet mellan medlemsstaterna är karusellbedrägerier. I stora drag kan karusellbedrägerier beskrivas som transaktioner med samma varor som säljs i rask takt mellan olika företag i olika länder. I samband med dessa försäljningar betalar något eller några av företagen inte in utgående mervärdesskatt, samtidigt som andra företag i kedjan har rätt till avdrag för ingående mervärdesskatt. Staten förlorar därmed mervärdesskatteintäkter. Karusellbedrägerier har behandlats i rättspraxis. I Optigen-domen fastställs att avdragsrätten för en part i god tro inte påverkas av bedrägligt beteende i tidigare eller senare led i transaktionskedjan. I Kittel-domen stadgas att en skattskyldig person som kände till eller borde ha känt till att dennes transaktion ingick i ett mervärdesskattebedrägeri skall anses vara medgärningsman och därmed vägras avdragsrätt. I uppsatsen utreds huruvida principen om förbud mot förfarandemissbruk kan vara tillämplig på karusellbedrägerier. Principen om förbud mot förfarandemissbruk har utvecklats för att angripa konstruerade transaktioner vars enda syfte är att genom missbruk av gemenskapslagstiftningen erhålla förmåner. I Halifax-domen fastslås att denna princip är tillämpbar på mervärdesskatteområdet. Vår slutsats är att principen om förbud mot förfarandemissbruk inte kan tillämpas på någon part i ett karusellbedrägeri. Vi anser att varken en part i god tro eller en part i ond tro angående bedrägeriet kan uppfylla kriterierna för principen. Det finns olika tillvägagångssätt för att angripa karusellbedrägerier. Inom EG används främst informationsutbyte som strategi för bedrägeribekämpning. Organisationer såsom SCAF och OLAF har också betydelse för bekämpningen. Även medlemsstaterna har på olika sätt försökt bekämpa bedrägerierna. De har bland annat använt sig av omvänd skattskyldighet och solidariskt betalningsansvar. Vi anser att de administrativa åtgärderna är avgörande för bekämpning av karusellbedrägerier. De mer genomgripande alternativen, såsom omvänd skattskyldighet och solidariskt betalningsansvar, bör endast användas då det är uppenbart att de administrativa åtgärderna inte räcker till. / Today, VAT fraud is a widely spread problem among intra-Community trade. Due to the growth of the common market and the structure of the harmonized VAT system, new forms of VAT fraud have arisen. The opening of the common market, in 1993, led to the abolition of physical border controls. The combination of physical and administrative controls was replaced by only administrative control. Until the VAT system is completely harmonized the principle of destination will be applied to intra-Community business-to-business transactions. Regulations on intra-Community transactions have been developed to avoid double taxation. These regulations mean that the purchaser will be taxed in its state of origin, and that the seller will be exempted from taxation in its state of origin. Carousel fraud is a form of VAT fraud that makes use of the VAT system and the lack of exchange of information between the member states. In general terms VAT fraud can be described as transactions with the same goods that are being sold at high speed between different companies in different countries. In connection to these sales one or more of the companies do not pay the output VAT, at the same time other companies in the chain of supply have the right to deduct input VAT. Due to this, the state will loose VAT revenues. Carousel fraud has been dealt with in EC case law. It is established in the Optigen judgment that the right, of a taxable person, to deduct input VAT cannot be affected by any other taxable person’s fraudulent behavior in the chain of supply as long as the taxable person did not know or have any means of knowledge of the fraud in question. The Kittel judgment states that a taxable person, who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction of VAT fraud, should be seen as a participant in that fraud and therefore be refused entitlement to the right to deduct. This thesis examines whether the principle of prohibiting abusive practice is applicable to carousel fraud. The Halifax judgment states that the principle also applies to the sphere of VAT. The principle of prohibiting abusive practice has been developed to attack transactions of purely artificial nature, which only purpose is to obtain advantages by abusing the Community law. However, our conclusion is that the principle of prohibiting abusive practice cannot be applied to anyone in a chain of transactions that constitutes carousel fraud. Our opinion is that neither a taxable person in god faith nor a taxable person in bad faith can meet the criteria of the principle. There are different ways to approach carousel fraud. Within the EC, exchange of information and various organisations for anti fraud are being used to deal with the problem. The member states have also, in various ways, tried to handle carousel fraud. They have for example used reverse charge and joint liability. We believe that administrative measures are crucial to combat carousel fraud. More radical alternatives such as reverse charge and joint liability should not be used unless it is obvious that the administrative measures do not suffice.

<p>Mervärdesskattebedrägerier inom den gemenskapsinterna handeln är idag ett utbrett problem. I och med den inre marknadens framväxt och det gemensamma mervärdesskattesystemets struktur har nya former av mervärdesskattebedrägerier uppstått. Då den inre marknaden öppnades 1993 togs den fysiska tullkontrollen bort och kvar återstod endast en administrativ kontroll. Till dess att en fullständig harmonisering kan genomföras på mervärdesskatteområdet tillämpas destinationslandsprincipen på gemenskapsintern handel mellan näringsidkare. För att undvika dubbelbeskattning har regler om gemenskapsinterna förvärv framtagits. Dessa innebär att köparen beskattas i sitt hemland och att säljaren undantas från skatteplikt i sitt hemland.</p><p>En form av mervärdesskattebedrägeri som utnyttjar mervärdesskattesystemet och bristerna i informationsutbytet mellan medlemsstaterna är karusellbedrägerier. I stora drag kan karusellbedrägerier beskrivas som transaktioner med samma varor som säljs i rask takt mellan olika företag i olika länder. I samband med dessa försäljningar betalar något eller några av företagen inte in utgående mervärdesskatt, samtidigt som andra företag i kedjan har rätt till avdrag för ingående mervärdesskatt. Staten förlorar därmed mervärdesskatteintäkter. Karusellbedrägerier har behandlats i rättspraxis. I Optigen-domen fastställs att avdragsrätten för en part i god tro inte påverkas av bedrägligt beteende i tidigare eller senare led i transaktionskedjan. I Kittel-domen stadgas att en skattskyldig person som kände till eller borde ha känt till att dennes transaktion ingick i ett mervärdesskattebedrägeri skall anses vara medgärningsman och därmed vägras avdragsrätt.</p><p>I uppsatsen utreds huruvida principen om förbud mot förfarandemissbruk kan vara tillämplig på karusellbedrägerier. Principen om förbud mot förfarandemissbruk har utvecklats för att angripa konstruerade transaktioner vars enda syfte är att genom missbruk av gemenskapslagstiftningen erhålla förmåner. I Halifax-domen fastslås att denna princip är tillämpbar på mervärdesskatteområdet. Vår slutsats är att principen om förbud mot förfarandemissbruk inte kan tillämpas på någon part i ett karusellbedrägeri. Vi anser att varken en part i god tro eller en part i ond tro angående bedrägeriet kan uppfylla kriterierna för principen. Det finns olika tillvägagångssätt för att angripa karusellbedrägerier. Inom EG används främst informationsutbyte som strategi för bedrägeribekämpning. Organisationer såsom SCAF och OLAF har också betydelse för bekämpningen. Även medlemsstaterna har på olika sätt försökt bekämpa bedrägerierna. De har bland annat använt sig av omvänd skattskyldighet och solidariskt betalningsansvar. Vi anser att de administrativa åtgärderna är avgörande för bekämpning av karusellbedrägerier. De mer genomgripande alternativen, såsom omvänd skattskyldighet och solidariskt betalningsansvar, bör endast användas då det är uppenbart att de administrativa åtgärderna inte räcker till.</p> / <p>Today, VAT fraud is a widely spread problem among intra-Community trade. Due to the growth of the common market and the structure of the harmonized VAT system, new forms of VAT fraud have arisen. The opening of the common market, in 1993, led to the abolition of physical border controls. The combination of physical and administrative controls was replaced by only administrative control.</p><p>Until the VAT system is completely harmonized the principle of destination will be applied to intra-Community business-to-business transactions. Regulations on intra-Community transactions have been developed to avoid double taxation. These regulations mean that the purchaser will be taxed in its state of origin, and that the seller will be exempted from taxation in its state of origin.</p><p>Carousel fraud is a form of VAT fraud that makes use of the VAT system and the lack of exchange of information between the member states. In general terms VAT fraud can be described as transactions with the same goods that are being sold at high speed between different companies in different countries. In connection to these sales one or more of the companies do not pay the output VAT, at the same time other companies in the chain of supply have the right to deduct input VAT. Due to this, the state will loose VAT revenues. Carousel fraud has been dealt with in EC case law. It is established in the Optigen judgment that the right, of a taxable person, to deduct input VAT cannot be affected by any other taxable person’s fraudulent behavior in the chain of supply as long as the taxable person did not know or have any means of knowledge of the fraud in question. The Kittel judgment states that a taxable person, who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction of VAT fraud, should be seen as a participant in that fraud and therefore be refused entitlement to the right to deduct.</p><p>This thesis examines whether the principle of prohibiting abusive practice is applicable to carousel fraud. The Halifax judgment states that the principle also applies to the sphere of VAT. The principle of prohibiting abusive practice has been developed to attack transactions of purely artificial nature, which only purpose is to obtain advantages by abusing the Community law. However, our conclusion is that the principle of prohibiting abusive practice cannot be applied to anyone in a chain of transactions that constitutes carousel fraud. Our opinion is that neither a taxable person in god faith nor a taxable person in bad faith can meet the criteria of the principle.</p><p>There are different ways to approach carousel fraud. Within the EC, exchange of information and various organisations for anti fraud are being used to deal with the problem. The member states have also, in various ways, tried to handle carousel fraud. They have for example used reverse charge and joint liability. We believe that administrative measures are crucial to combat carousel fraud. More radical alternatives such as reverse charge and joint liability should not be used unless it is obvious that the administrative measures do not suffice.</p>