Where a company as a tax entity has the existence of material performance, which is proven by documentary evidence e.g. The delivery letters or inventories of the work carried out, exhausted the burden of proof. In several of its decisions, the Supreme Court found that in cases where there is a detailed inventory of the goods and services delivered on the invoices and is not the situation where the company only has an invoice with general descriptions of taxable transactions, the tax authority cannot VAT Return. In the event that there is doubt in the Tax Office on the basis of verifying the accounts of the company's suppliers as a tax entity, it cannot have a negative impact on the outcome of the tax control. The tax entity cannot assume that, for certain suppliers, it should, beyond its obligation, provide evidence of taxable transactions in the event that the financial records are not properly maintained for those firms. If the tax authority has doubts about the claims of the tax entity and the evidence submitted by it does not intend to accept it, then it is obliged to prove that fact, i.e. Evidence that the tax entity's claims have returned. To prove the contrary as a result of the facts which occurred with the supplier and its subcontractors, the burden of proof and the probative emergency of the tax administrator. If these facts are enforced against the tax entity participation in the evidence must be allowed. It is necessary to distinguish the range of evidence that the tax entity retains by default the existence of taxable transactions from subsequent forensic evidence. It is therefore not possible for the tax administrator to assign to the tax entity the existence of a probative emergency in respect of facts which did not constitute the burden of proof. In this context, it is also possible to refer to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the Court has stated that the claim for deduction cannot be affected by the fact that, in the supply chain, another previous or subsequent transaction is burdened by tax fraud which The slice does not know or can not know. Each transaction must be assessed by itself and the nature of the individual transactions cannot be altered by previous or subsequent events. It should be based on the principle in Dubio Mitius, in the sense that, in order to fully ascertain the state of the case, the tax administrator is obliged to carry out all the evidence, even those not proposed by the tax entity.
Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax states that if the financial authorities in a tax proceeding find objective facts that testify to the abuse of the right (artificial nature of transactions, the personnel interconnection of taxable persons, Failure to demonstrate the location of an economic activity, non-contact of the payer, non-filing of tax returns, non-payment of own tax liability and other objective facts), they are entitled to indicate in their decisions how evidence Which lead to the conclusion that abuse of the law was the main objective of the transaction '. The tax manager to accept the above conclusion on misuse of rights is required to ascertain the objective facts. The case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities points out that the right to deduct as set out in art. 17 and NASL. 6. The directive is a legal component of the VAT mechanism and cannot, in principle, be limited. It is emphasised from the wording of the Court's rulings in relation to VAT that the deduction of input tax in respect of other transactions which it did not have as a matter of influence, its right to deduct is not affected.