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.

Companies financed through borrowed capital are allowed a tax deduction for the costs re-lated to their borrowed capital. A similar tax relief for companies financed through share-holder’s equity does not exist, why these companies are taxed higher than companies fi-nanced by borrowed capital. The result is that there is an asymmetric tax treatment of companies depending on how they are financed. The autumn of 2012, the Swedish government presents a proposal for an investor deduc-tion which seeks to equalize the above mentioned asymmetry. The proposed investor de-duction is a tax relief for investments in shares in a startup- or small company equal to 50 percent of the acquisition cost of that investment. The venture capital deduction, which in this thesis is treated as an alternative to the inves-tor deduction, is an interest-free tax credit which significate that two-thirds of the acquisi-tion cost is deductible from taxation at the time of the acquisition. Another alternative is the UK's Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), which offers a package of tax reliefs that becomes applicable when an individual invests in a company for example a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of acquisition. A final option is the Notional Interest Deduction (NID) which is a tax deduction for companies regarding a fictitious interest on equity. Of these models, only the NID deduction equalizes the tax asymmetry, because of that it is a relief that is comparable to the tax credit deduction for interest on borrowed capital. However entails all models, except the venture capital deduction, to make external capital more accessible by reducing the external investor's required rate of return by allowing a permanent tax relief. Aside from the NID deduction all models includes conditions that reduces the risk of the use of the models for purpose of tax avoidance which results in that that models can be perceived as complex.

<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 diploma thesis deals with business transactions in terms of their accounting and VAT treatment according the statutory regulations in the Czech Republic. Firstly, accounting and VAT essentials are defined, the status of VAT in the European context is described as well. The thesis focuses not only on accounting of VAT in general, but it also shows some specific cases. The thesis deals with the right to deduct input VAT in connection with tax evasions in more detail. This issue was described using judicature. In the end, the possible ways how to deal safely with business partners are also discussed.

This thesis contains an analysis of the activities of logistics research and development corporation Honeywell HTS CZ o. z., on an annual breakdown. It forms the basis for selection of individual consignments of customs regulations and practical application of VAT and other research organizations operating in various sectors. Forms section contains changes to the existing system of customs regulations and logistics department recommendation system settings for different types of organizations that will lead to financial savings.

Den ingående mervärdesskatten som är hänförlig till förvärv som har ett direkt och ome- delbart samband med en från mervärdesskatt undantagen aktieöverlåtelse är inte avdrags- gill. Till följd av EU-domstolens avgörande i X BV och HFD:s avgörande i HFD 2014 ref. 1 står nu klart att kostnader hänförliga till en från mervärdesskatt undantagen aktieöverlå- telse också kan utgöra allmänna omkostnader, vilket medför att den ingående mervär- desskatten är avdragsgill i den mån förvärven har ett direkt och omedelbart samband med den samlade ekonomiska verksamheten eller en avgränsad del därav. Avgörandena i X BV och HFD 2014 ref. 1 innebär även att det nu står klart att en aktieö- verlåtelse kan utgöra en del i en verksamhetsöverlåtelse. För förvärv som gjorts i samband med en sådan transaktion är den ingående mervärdesskatten avdragsgill i sin helhet. Utredningen visar att eftersom det i HFD 2014 ref. 1 aldrig prövades om kostnaderna kunde anses utgöra allmänna omkostnader har underinstanserna såväl som Skatteverket inte fått ledning i hur bedömningen ska göras. Författaren anser att Skatteverket och un- derinstanserna i sin prövning av om kostnader för förvärv kan anses utgöra allmänna om- kostnader inte tar hänsyn till de EU-rättsliga principer som EU-domstolen har framhållit. Vidare anser författaren att rättsläget efter X BV och HFD 2014 ref. 1 innebär att den rätt till avdrag av ingående mervärdesskatt hänförlig till förvärv i samband med aktieöverlåtelser som svenska beskattningsbara personer ska erhålla enligt EU-rätt, synes skilja sig från den faktiska rätt som erhålls i praktiken. / The input VAT related to acquisitions made that have a direct and immediate link with a share transfer that constitute a transaction that is exempted from VAT, is not deductible. Due to the EU Court of Justice’s ruling in X BV and HFD:s ruling in HFD 2014 ref. 1 it is now clear that costs related to a share transfer exempted from VAT also can constitute overheads, with the result that the input VAT is deductible to the extent the acquisitions have a direct and immediate link with the whole economic activity or a clearly defined part of the economic activities. The rulings in X BV and HFD 2014 ref. 1 mean that it is now clear that a share transfer can be a part of a transfer of a totality of assets. For acquisitions made in connection with such a transfer, the input VAT is entirely deductible. The thesis shows that due to the fact that the ruling in HFD 2014 ref. 1 did not include a determination of if the costs in question could constitute overheads, the Swedish courts of lower instances as well as Skatteverket have not received any guidance on how the deter- mination is to be made. The author is of the opinion that the courts of lower instances and Skatteverket in their determination of whether costs related to acquisitions can constitute overheads do not consider the EU-law principles declared by the EU Court of Justice. Further, the author is of the opinion that the legal situation due to X BV and HFD 2014 ref. 1 mean that the right to deduct input VAT related to acquisitions made in connection with share transfers that Swedish taxable persons are supposed to obtain in accordance with EU-law seem to differ from the rights actually obtained in practice.

The aim of this thesis is to explain the issue of value added tax, its general principles, the right to deduct value added tax and subsequently explain the impact of this tax in accounting, including the difference between accounting and tax documents. This thesis deals with exemptions from value added tax, supply and purchase of goods from another Member State, providing services and export and import of goods. This thesis presents several judgments of the European Court of Justice in the field of value added tax.

The main aim of the dissertation thesis is a case of the right deduct to input VAT which let companies to be involved into carousel frauds. The thesis analyses the related cases and examines in which conditions it may be legitimate to entitle the right to deduct recognize and when it is not. It also discusses the possible ways how to deal safely with partners. Moreover, it also examines which steps need to be taken into the consideration to reduce tax evasion on VAT which have been done recently in the Czech Republic.