Abuse principle blocks VAT correction and exemption

Skatteverket has spelled out an example of when the EU abuse-of-rights principle (missbruksprincipen) bites in VATSkatteverket: the national rules letting a supplier correct wrongly charged VAT by issuing an ändringsfaktura cannot be used where the issuer did not act in good faith but together with the recipient created an arrangement amounting to tax evasion. That applies provided a corresponding correction of the recipient's input VAT is not possible.Skatteverket The same principle can likewise be applied to the right to use a VAT exemption, citing C-712/17 EN.SA (point 33) and C-285/09 R (points 48-50)Skatteverket. The passage, stamped "Nytt: 2026-09-11" on the Rättsprinciper page, is the operative news; the page header labels it a clarification with an example of the principle's application.

The example sharpens the good-faith condition that already governs corrections. Under the Ändringsfaktura guidance, a wrongly invoiced amount must be paid to the state, but member states must provide a correction route where the issuer shows good faith (C-835/18 Terracult, C-454/98 Schmeink & Cofreth)Skatteverket — normally, in Sweden, by issuing an ändringsfaktura under 7 kap. 50 § första stycket mervärdesskattelagenSkatteverket. The new passage states the other side of that coin: an issuer that jointly built the evasion scheme cannot invoke the correction right to unwind the VAT it charged, at least while the recipient's corresponding input-VAT correction cannot be madeSkatteverket. Neutrality does not rescue the claim either: a taxable person that deliberately took part in VAT fraud and endangered the common VAT system cannot successfully invoke proportionality, neutrality, legal certainty or legitimate expectations (T-646/24 Ms Kljucarovci, point 60Skatteverket, already on the page).

The principle's reach is general. It lets national authorities and courts deny a right flowing from the VAT Directive wherever EU law is invoked abusively, no matter which VAT right the evasion touches (joined cases C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13, Schoenimport "Italmoda" Mariano Previti)Skatteverket. Its application needs no national implementation (HFD 2013 ref. 12)Skatteverket. By contrast, transactions that can already be set aside under statute — a supply wrongly treated as taxable, an input-VAT deduction taken contrary to the Act — are dealt with under the Act, and procedural abuse of a different kind is handled by the prohibition on förfarandemissbruk, under which the reported input and output tax on the transactions is disregarded.

For practice, the passage matters in two recurring situations: supplier-side corrections in fraud-adjacent chains, where issuing an ändringsfaktura is now expressly stated to be unavailable in bad-faith joint arrangementsSkatteverket, and exemption claims, where abuse can equally defeat the rightSkatteverket. Advisers reviewing a correction or an exemption in a chain with fraud indicators should test good faith and the recipient-side correction position before relying on either.

Legal basis: the EU abuse-of-rights principle as stated in C-712/17 EN.SA and C-285/09 R with C-131/13, C-163/13 and C-164/13 (Italmoda), which needs no national implementation (HFD 2013 ref. 12); corrections in Sweden are otherwise made by ändringsfaktura under 7 kap. 50 § mervärdesskattelagenSkatteverket. Clarified on Skatteverket's Rättsprinciper page on 11 September 2026.