VAT news [June 2026]

Activities of the tax administration

The draft amendment to the Act on the Registration of Sales and on the Amendment of Certain Other Acts, including the VAT Act, has already passed the first reading in the Chamber of Deputies, while the second reading is expected during the summer. In addition to the original proposal, the limitation on the acquisition of a selected passenger car representing the payer’s fixed assets has been completely abolished. This change is proposed to come into effect from 1 January 2027.

CJEU case law

• In the decision in Case T-198/25 G Kft. , the General Court of the CJEU considered the possibility of correcting unjustifiably charged VAT in the light of the Hungarian legislation. The General Court of the CJEU held that Member States may limit the exercise of this right in time, provided that the principle of effectiveness is respected, while in the present case the payer had sufficient time to make the correction, and therefore the national rules were not found to be disproportionate. The fact that, after the end of the tax audit, it was no longer possible to file a supplementary return or to reopen the inspection was not considered to be a breach of the principle of neutrality, since the taxable person was not absolutely deprived of the right to a VAT refund. In our opinion, this is not a key decision for common practice in the Czech Republic.
• In Case T444/25 Cavert, the  General Court of the CJEU considered the question of the application of the VAT exemption to services supplied by a member of a VAT group where the conditions for exemption are fulfilled by another member of that group. According to the CJEU General Court, it is not possible to apply the exemption, as it must be interpreted restrictively and applies to specific entities providing services, not to the VAT group as a whole. At the same time, it emphasised that recognising the exemption solely on the basis of group membership would violate the principle of fiscal neutrality and that the regulation of VAT groups primarily pursues administrative simplification, not an extension of the scope of the exemption. This conclusion corresponds to a commonly used approach in practice.
• In the Opinion of the Advocate General in Case T383/25 Segelbootwartung , the essence of the question was the application of import VAT to goods imported into the EU for the purpose of repair and subsequently re-exported. The Advocate General concluded that the mere entry of goods into the territory of the EU constitutes an import generally subject to VAT, unless one of the special customs procedures is used, and that subsequent exports do not call that obligation into question either. VAT was thus rightly applied in the present case, and the Advocate General mentions the use of the inward processing regime as a possible solution, possibly with retroactive effect.
• In Case C308/25 Isolanti, the Advocate General assessed the compatibility of the Italian VAT amnesties with EU law. The Advocate General found that such amnesties were generally incompatible with the VAT Directive, in particular because they undermined the principle of fiscal neutrality. The fact that the Italian legislation at the same time excluded the remission of VAT on importation is seen by the Advocate General as a supporting argument confirming that the amnesty as a whole is incompatible with EU law.