Ampafrance SA v Directeur des services fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire and Sanofi Synthelabo v Directeur des services fiscaux du Val-de-Marne (C-177/99, C-181/99)

Judgment of 19 Sept 2000

law://eu/cjeu/1999/c-177-99/para_34@2026-11-12

34It should be pointed out that, according to the fundamental principle which underlies the VAT system, and which follows from Article 2 of the First and Sixth Directives, VAT applies to each transaction by way of production or distribution after deduction has been made of the VAT which has been levied directly on transactions relating to inputs (Case C-62/93 BP Soupergaz v Greek State [1995] ECR I-1883, paragraph 16). It is settled case-law that the right of deduction provided for in Article 17 et seq. of the Sixth Directive is an integral part of the VAT scheme and in principle may not be limited. That right must be exercised immediately in respect of all the taxes charged on transactions relating to inputs (see, in particular, the judgment in BP Soupergaz, cited above, paragraph 18, and Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 Gabalfrisa and Others v AEAT [2000] ECR I-1577, paragraph 43). Any limitation on the right of deduction affects the level of the tax burden and must be applied in a similar manner in all the Member States. Consequently, derogations are permitted only in the cases expressly provided for in the directive (judgment in BP Soupergaz, cited above, paragraph 18).

Ampafrance SA v Directeur des services fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire and Sanofi Synthelabo v Directeur des services fiscaux du Val-de-Marne (C-177/99, C-181/99)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections