The amendment to the VAT Act, which will most likely be published in the Collection of Laws by the end of the year, brings many changes. One of the most significant will be the mandatory refund of VAT deductions on unpaid liabilities that are 6 months overdue. The good news is that this new regulation will apply to liabilities incurred only from 1 January 2025.
I would like to begin by noting that since the amendment has passed its third reading in the Chamber of Deputies, no further changes to the approved text are expected.
In the explanatory memorandum, the tax administration refers to the case law of the CJEU. The aim of this article is not to have an academic discussion on the justification of this procedure, but to present the new mechanism.
The debtor will be obliged to make a correction (reduction of the tax deduction) if the receivable from the taxable supply has not been paid by the last day of the 6th calendar month immediately following the calendar month in which the due date has expired.
In practice, this will mean that for liabilities arising in 2025, the debtor will have to keep track of maturities and payments. For example, if the liability and due date falls in January 2025, the debtor must make payment by the end of July 2025 at the latest. If this does not happen, the debtor will have to repay the VAT deduction claimed.
However, the refund of the deduction may not be final. In the event of an additional reimbursement (for example, in our example, in December 2025), a "correction of the correction" can be made and the VAT refund can be reclaimed.
For quarterly payers, there will even be a situation where a refund of the deduction will not be required. This is the case where the obligation to repay the deduction and make a subsequent payment should be made in the same quarter. In our example, this would be the case if the repayment of the liability occurs no later than the end of September 2025, the end of the quarter in question, which is the 6th month after the due month.
I am already receiving a number of questions about this brand new provision. According to my information, the tax administration will issue information that should clarify the most frequent questions. The information usually comes out after the amendment is published in the Collection of Laws, which will probably be in December.
However, let me give you my view on the most common questions:
In my opinion, we need to work with real maturity. If the invoice misstates the due date, everything should still be based on the due date that was agreed with the supplier in the contract.
This should be allowed, but it should not be an abuse of the law. It will certainly be suspicious for the tax authorities if agreements are made very late or even ex post.
Here we have to wait for the interpretation of the tax administration. Of course, it will be based on the contractual agreement, but I can imagine a situation where the contractor invoices for the whole work and does not agree to the retention. We'll see what the tax authorities come up with.
According to the wording of the amendment, it seems that this provision should also apply to liabilities for which the customer is obliged to pay tax. This applies in particular to transactions received from abroad or under the reverse charge regime. On the other hand, I have already heard statements from important representatives of the public administration that this provision should apply only to those receivables on which the supplier pays VAT. I trust that the promised information will also clarify this matter.
At first glance, the tax administrator cannot tell that the liability has not been paid when due. Nor should there be any new box in the control report. We assume that the default will come to light during inspections. In the event that a tax inspection subsequently results in a tax liability being assessed, a penalty of 20% of the tax assessed will be imposed and interest on late payment (currently around 12% p.a.) will also be assessed.
Autor: Petr Linx
I would like to begin by noting that since the amendment has passed its third reading in the Chamber of Deputies, no further changes to the approved text are expected.
In the explanatory memorandum, the tax administration refers to the case law of the CJEU. The aim of this article is not to have an academic discussion on the justification of this procedure, but to present the new mechanism.
The debtor will be obliged to make a correction (reduction of the tax deduction) if the receivable from the taxable supply has not been paid by the last day of the 6th calendar month immediately following the calendar month in which the due date has expired.
In practice, this will mean that for liabilities arising in 2025, the debtor will have to keep track of maturities and payments. For example, if the liability and due date falls in January 2025, the debtor must make payment by the end of July 2025 at the latest. If this does not happen, the debtor will have to repay the VAT deduction claimed.
However, the refund of the deduction may not be final. In the event of an additional reimbursement (for example, in our example, in December 2025), a "correction of the correction" can be made and the VAT refund can be reclaimed.
For quarterly payers, there will even be a situation where a refund of the deduction will not be required. This is the case where the obligation to repay the deduction and make a subsequent payment should be made in the same quarter. In our example, this would be the case if the repayment of the liability occurs no later than the end of September 2025, the end of the quarter in question, which is the 6th month after the due month.
I am already receiving a number of questions about this brand new provision. According to my information, the tax administration will issue information that should clarify the most frequent questions. The information usually comes out after the amendment is published in the Collection of Laws, which will probably be in December.
However, let me give you my view on the most common questions:
Due date on invoice vs. due date in contract
In my opinion, we need to work with real maturity. If the invoice misstates the due date, everything should still be based on the due date that was agreed with the supplier in the contract.
Extension of maturity
This should be allowed, but it should not be an abuse of the law. It will certainly be suspicious for the tax authorities if agreements are made very late or even ex post.
Sunk charges (retentions)
Here we have to wait for the interpretation of the tax administration. Of course, it will be based on the contractual agreement, but I can imagine a situation where the contractor invoices for the whole work and does not agree to the retention. We'll see what the tax authorities come up with.
Self-measurement
According to the wording of the amendment, it seems that this provision should also apply to liabilities for which the customer is obliged to pay tax. This applies in particular to transactions received from abroad or under the reverse charge regime. On the other hand, I have already heard statements from important representatives of the public administration that this provision should apply only to those receivables on which the supplier pays VAT. I trust that the promised information will also clarify this matter.
Surveying
At first glance, the tax administrator cannot tell that the liability has not been paid when due. Nor should there be any new box in the control report. We assume that the default will come to light during inspections. In the event that a tax inspection subsequently results in a tax liability being assessed, a penalty of 20% of the tax assessed will be imposed and interest on late payment (currently around 12% p.a.) will also be assessed.Autor: Petr Linx