What sources does Taxxa search?

Taxxa searches a continuously updated collection of more than one million pages from tax authorities, government publications, legislation and case law across the European jurisdictions it covers. Every response cites the underlying material, so a professional can inspect the rule, its jurisdiction and whether it is current before relying on the result.

Can Taxxa work with a team’s own documents?

Yes. Research can combine the public knowledge base with a team’s own PDF, DOCX, CSV and TXT files in one workspace. That makes it possible to compare a client document with the relevant guidance, trace a conclusion to its source and prepare a draft without losing the evidence that supports it.

Who is Taxxa built for?

Accountants, auditors, tax advisors, payroll specialists, bookkeepers and advisory teams working across European jurisdictions. Shared workspaces keep research available to colleagues, and citations make review easier.

Where is customer data stored, and is it used to train models?

Customer data stays in the European Union and is never used to train language models.

Does Taxxa replace professional judgement?

No. Taxxa is a research and drafting workspace. It helps professionals reach an informed starting point faster; the professional still reviews the evidence and makes the final decision. It does not file returns, post bookkeeping entries or give legal advice.

LithuaniaLiteko

PVM on repair bill stays a loss until deduction is proved

The appeal court kept EUR 14,115.86 of repair costs with PVM: actually paid PVM is a loss until the specific deduction is proved, and granting one alternative claim means the action succeeds in full.

By Taxxa AI OyPublished 15 October 2026

Tax Legal & Corporate

Industry: Across industries

The Court of Appeal of Lithuania, in its ruling of 15 October 2026Teismai in case No. e2A-518-553/2026, left unchanged the first-instance judgmentTeismai awarding the buyer UAB "Con turus" EUR 14,115.86 from the seller UAB "KASIMA"Teismai for the cost of remedying defects in a used wheeled excavator, including value added tax (PVM)Teismai. The dispute arose from a contract of 16 July 2025 for a used VOLVO wheeled excavator at EUR 105,270. The day after handover, material defects emerged that made operating it unsafe, and UAB "Swecon" recorded on 28 July 2025 that the buyer could not have noticed them on an initial assessment and recommended against further operation.

The first-instance court found that the defects existed at handoverTeismai, were not apparent, and did not result from the buyer's use, since components could not have worn out naturally over such brief operation. Clause 4.1, under which a buyer declining an inspection loses the right to rely on discoverable defects, is void as barring the defence of infringed rights, and the buyer had no duty to commission a specialised inspection before purchase. During the proceedings, once the excavator had been repaired, the buyer amended its claim and chose the alternative remedy of repair-cost recovery instead of termination with restitutionTeismai. UAB "Kurt Koenig" repaired the machine on 11 November 2025, and its PVM invoice of 12 November 2025 for EUR 14,115.86Teismai, paid on 16 January 2026Teismai, confirmed the costs actually incurred.

The appellate panel rejected the seller's argument that EUR 2,449.86 of PVM should be deducted from the awardTeismai because the buyer, as a PVM payer entitled to input-PVM deduction, would otherwise be enriched twice. Under Article 6.249(1) of the Civilinis kodeksas damage covers expenses incurred, and under Article 6.251(1) losses are compensated in full, provided each expense was actually incurred, necessary and reasonable. This sum was actually paid, unlike estimates for unrepaired property. Mere PVM-payer status does not prove the EUR 2,449.86 was deducted or recoveredTeismai: the aggregate December 2025 return cannot carry the disputed invoice, paid only on 16 January 2026. Deduction is a right, not a dutyTeismai, so unjust enrichment cannot rest on an assumed future deductionTeismai. Under Article 178 of the Civilinio proceso kodeksas each side proves its own case, and here the buyer proved payment while the seller proved no actual deduction.

The panel also rejected the seller's appeal on the allocation of litigation costs. Since termination with restitution and repair-cost recovery cannot both be granted, they are alternative claimsTeismai, so granting one means the action succeeds in fullTeismai and no 13/87 apportionment appliesTeismai. The appeal was dismissedTeismai, the judgment left unchangedTeismai, and the buyer additionally received EUR 1,815 in appellate costs.

Legal basis: Article 6.249(1), Article 6.251(1) and Article 6.334(1)(3) of the Civilinis kodeksas; Articles 93, 98 and 178 of the Civilinio proceso kodeksas.

When defending or pursuing repair-cost damages in Lithuania, prove whether the specific PVM sum was actually deducted; payer status alone neither defeats nor establishes the loss.

Sources