VAT recovery should be straightforward: if you purchase goods or services for taxable business use, you expect to recover the VAT charged. But what happens when there is a technical issue on the supplier’s side, particularly when their VAT number has been revoked or when the supplier has been classified as “inactive” by the tax authority?
These situations create uncertainty for businesses across Europe. Companies often incur legitimate VAT, only to face challenges when claiming refunds because of administrative irregularities that are entirely outside their control.
A new European Court of Justice (ECJ) case may finally bring clarity to this long-standing problem. The case, C-465/25 (Matin Maier v Romania), questions whether a business can be denied VAT recovery solely because the supplier’s VAT registration was revoked or inactive at the time of the supply.
For international businesses and refund applicants, this decision has the potential to be highly influential.
Across the EU, tax authorities have increasingly relied on administrative criteria to restrict VAT refund claims. One of the more contentious areas involves denying input VAT because the supplier’s VAT number was invalid, revoked, or inactive, despite the fact that the supply itself was real, the invoice was accurate, and the business had no involvement in the supplier’s compliance status.
This approach places an undue burden on honest taxpayers, especially foreign companies seeking refunds through the EU 8th or 13th Directive processes. It introduces risk into supply chains, delays refunds, and can create unexpected, irrecoverable VAT costs.
The ECJ has already ruled, in various contexts, that VAT recovery cannot be denied for purely formal reasons when the substantive conditions of a supply are met. However, Member States have not always aligned their practice with this principle, making the outcome of this case particularly important.
The case centres around whether input VAT can be denied when the supplier’s VAT number has been revoked or when the supplier is listed as “inactive” according to national criteria.
In Romania, suppliers can be classified as inactive for several reasons, ranging from failure to file returns to administrative discrepancies. When this happens, tax authorities often refuse to acknowledge the validity of invoices issued by that supplier, even if the goods or services were unquestionably delivered.
The taxpayer in C-465/25 argues that when the supply is real, the VAT is properly documented, and the buyer has acted in good faith, the right to deduct should not depend on the supplier’s administrative status.
The Romanian court has referred the matter to the ECJ for clarification, a strong indication that the issue is both unresolved and of significant importance across the EU.
At the heart of the case is a simple but powerful question: Can a tax authority deny a taxpayer’s right to recover VAT if the supplier’s VAT number has been revoked or the supplier is marked inactive, even though the supply itself actually occurred?
The ruling will determine whether Member States can continue to impose restrictive national rules that override EU principles, or whether they must respect the fundamental right to deduct VAT when substantive conditions are met.
From an EU VAT law perspective, the right to deduct is a cornerstone of the VAT system. Businesses should not bear the burden of VAT on inputs used in taxable activities. The ECJ has consistently held that deductibility cannot be denied due to formal irregularities, provided:
A supplier’s VAT status, even if revoked, does not alter these underlying facts.
To deny VAT recovery solely because of the supplier’s administrative shortcomings risks penalising compliant businesses for matters beyond their control. It would also undermine the neutrality of VAT, an essential principle that ensures the tax does not distort business decisions.
Foreign businesses and multinationals are at particular risk because they cannot easily verify the day-to-day administrative status of every local vendor across multiple countries.
If the ECJ confirms that VAT recovery cannot be denied solely due to a supplier’s revoked number, this could have major implications:
This will be especially relevant for industries with complex, multi-layered supplier networks, such as manufacturing, logistics, events organisation, construction, and pharmaceuticals.
The ECJ’s eventual ruling could take several directions.
The court may rule that administrative issues, such as an inactive VAT number, cannot invalidate the right to an input VAT deduction when the supply is genuine and properly documented.
This would reinforce past case law and limit Member States from imposing restrictive national rules.
The ECJ may allow some limitations if the supplier’s status indicates fraud, but require authorities to prove the buyer knew or should have known about irregularities.
This would create obligations but protect honest businesses.
If the ECJ were to permit denial of VAT deductions based solely on the supplier’s status, this would drastically increase refund risks and inconsistencies across Member States.
Given the ECJ’s established jurisprudence, the first outcome is the most probable.
Until the judgment is released, companies should continue to strengthen their documentation and due-diligence processes. This includes:
While these measures do not provide certainty, they reinforce good faith and help protect your VAT position during audits or refund claims.
Many of VAT IT’s clients operate internationally with complex supply chains, where invoices come from multiple jurisdictions with varying administrative systems. The risk that one supplier’s non-compliance could invalidate your right to deduct VAT is both unfair and impractical.
This ECJ case is important because it may finally create clarity across all Member States, ensuring businesses are not penalised for issues outside their control. As always, VAT IT continues to monitor all developments closely, working with local partners and tax authorities globally.
When the ruling is published, our experts will provide a full analysis and explain what it means for:
We will ensure you understand exactly how the outcome affects your reclaim potential.
The upcoming ECJ ruling in C-465/25 (Matin Maier v Romania) is set to address a critical and long-standing VAT question: can a taxpayer lose the right to recover VAT simply because a supplier’s VAT number was revoked or marked inactive?
The answer will have far-reaching consequences for VAT neutrality, cross-border refunds, administrative practices, and the way businesses manage supplier relationships.
Until the court issues its decision, the best strategy is to maintain robust documentation, continue good-faith compliance, and stay informed.
VAT IT will continue to monitor the case closely and provide guidance to help you navigate the complexities, turning potential VAT obstacles into opportunities for clarity and recovery.
Marketplace Facilitator Laws and US Sales Tax: Impact...
Marketplace Facilitator Laws and US Sales Tax: Impact on Global E-Commerce Sellers Global e-commerce continues to expand at an unprecedented pace, but with that growth comes increasing complexity in electronic commerce taxation. One of the most significant developments in recent years is the introduction of marketplace facilitator laws across the United States. These rules have […]
Cross-Border VAT Compliance Pitfalls That Cost Finance Teams...
Cross-Border VAT Compliance Pitfalls That Cost Finance Teams Millions Expanding across borders offers tremendous opportunities for growth. However, for finance teams, international expansion often introduces one of the most complex areas of indirect taxation: cross-border VAT compliance. Value Added Tax systems are enforced in more than 170 countries worldwide, each with their own rules, […]
e-Invoicing Data Quality: Common Errors Across Jurisdictions Data...
e-Invoicing Data Quality: Common Errors Across Jurisdictions Data quality is central to modern tax compliance. With e-invoicing mandates expanding globally, invoices must meet strict technical and regulatory standards in clearance and real-time reporting systems. Even minor errors can trigger immediate rejection or penalties, as machine-readable e-invoices leave little room for interpretation once submitted to tax authorities. […]
Top Indirect Tax Compliance Services in 2026 As...
Top Indirect Tax Compliance Services in 2026 As global tax authorities accelerate digital reporting and real-time oversight, indirect tax compliance has become a growing operational priority for multinational businesses. Unlike direct taxes, indirect tax obligations, including VAT, GST, sales tax and customs duties, are transaction-driven, jurisdiction-specific and increasingly automated by governments. Errors can lead not only to […]
Vietnam VAT Refunds: Seller Declaration No Longer a...
Vietnam VAT Refunds: Seller Declaration No Longer a Barrier for Buyers VAT refunds have long been a source of frustration for businesses operating in Vietnam. Even when buyers complied fully with the law, refunds could be delayed or denied for reasons entirely outside their control. The most common issue was simple but damaging: if a supplier failed to declare […]
7 Best e-Invoicing Compliance Solutions in 2026 As...
7 Best e-Invoicing Compliance Solutions in 2026 As governments accelerate digital tax reform, e-invoicing is no longer a process improvement, it is a legal requirement. From real-time clearance models in Europe to continuous transaction controls emerging across the Middle East, businesses must now implement compliant, scalable and future-ready systems. Selecting from the best e-invoicing compliance solutions in 2026 […]
