Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
V B 118/25 ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:B.290426.VB118.25.0 AI generated

Input VAT deduction validity where supplier invoice lists new name after corporate renaming

Case Number V B 118/25
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Court of Tax (BFH) allowed the taxpayer's revision complaint, permitting an appeal against the Berlin-Brandenburg Finance Court's judgment which had likely denied the taxpayer's input VAT deduction claim. The dispute centers on whether a supplier's change of name—specifically, the supplier's use of a new future name instead of its current valid name at the time of service and invoicing—invalidates the invoice for VAT purposes. The court ordered that the revision proceed to clarify the legal question of whether a recipient's right to deduct input VAT can be denied solely because the supplier indicated a new, upcoming name in the invoice rather than the name legally valid at the time of performance and billing. This decision establishes that the revision is admissible to resolve this specific point of law regarding invoice requirements under value-added tax regulations.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO; Input VAT deduction validity where supplier invoice lists new name after corporate renaming: The dispute centers on whether a supplier's change of name—specifically, the supplier's use of a new future name instead of its current valid name at the time of service and invoicing—invalidates the invoice for VAT purposes. The court ordered that the revision proceed to clarify the legal question of whether a recipient's right to deduct input VAT can be denied solely because the supplier indicated a new, upcoming name in the invoice rather than the name legally valid at the time of performance and billing. This decision establishes that the revision is admissible to resolve this specific point of law regarding invoice requirements under value-added tax regulations.

Keywords

AI generated
input tax deduction change of name VAT = Value added tax added value validity of service value in dispute

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO
Cited in the dispositive to justify the issuance of the decision without further reasoning or description of the facts.
AI generated
V B 134/09
Input tax deduction based on legitimate expectation and equity where invoice issuer and supplier are not identical
V R 18/17
Input tax deduction validity: sufficiency of generic service descriptions and implicit derivation of performance date from invoice issue date
V R 55/09
Input VAT deduction precluded by invalid tax reference number lacking retroactive correction
V R 47/16
Input VAT deduction denied for lack of identity between invoice issuer and performing entrepreneur in missing trader fraud.
V R 65/16
Denial of input VAT for disputed supplier invoices based on failure to prove delivery and invalid bookkeeping

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO

Cited in the dispositive to justify the issuance of the decision without further reasoning or description of the facts.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Vorsteuerabzug und Rechnungsanforderungen bei Umbenennung

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Die Revision wird zur Klärung der Rechtsfrage zugelassen, ob dem Leistungsempfänger die Ausübung des Rechts auf Vorsteuerabzug mit einer Rechnung allein deshalb versagt werden darf, weil der leistende Unternehmer, der sich im Stadium der Umbenennung befindet, in der Rechnung schon seinen neuen, zukünftigen (und nicht seinen alten, im Leistungs- und Rechnungsstellungszeitpunkt noch gültigen) Namen angegeben hat.

[TENOR]

Auf die Beschwerde der Klägerin wegen Nichtzulassung der Revision gegen das Urteil des Finanzgerichts Berlin-Brandenburg vom 12.11.2025 - 5 K 5140/24 wird die Revision zugelassen.

[GRUENDE]

1. Die Revision wird zur Klärung der Rechtsfrage zugelassen, ob dem Leistungsempfänger die Ausübung des Rechts auf Vorsteuerabzug mit einer Rechnung allein deshalb versagt werden darf, weil der leistende Unternehmer, der sich im Stadium der Umbenennung befindet, in der Rechnung schon seinen neuen, zukünftigen (und nicht seinen alten, im Leistungs- und Rechnungsstellungszeitpunkt noch gültigen) Namen angegeben hat.

2. Der Beschluss ergeht nach § 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 letzte Alternative der Finanzgerichtsordnung ohne weitere Begründung sowie ohne Darstellung des Sachverhalts.