In a situation where the taxpayer [resp. person taxable] holds an invoice prior to submittal of the return/statement
for the settlement period in which the tax obligation occurred on the part of the contracting party, the term laid down
in Article 178 (a) of Directive 112 has been met. Whilst the holding of an invoice is the only formal requirement, the
notion of ‘holding’ ought to be interpreted in a manner compliant with its colloquial understanding. In turn, ‘holding’
is not equal in meaning to ‘receiving’/‘receipt’. In the event that an economic event has occurred and the taxpayer
is capable of giving evidence for it, as he holds the invoice at the moment the tax settlement is made in the return/
statement, there are no grounds that would be legitimate under the EU laws for arguing that the taxpayer must shift
his vested right to have the input tax deducted to the subsequent month, being the months in which he receives the
invoice. The rule of prompt implementation of the right to deduct input tax should be taken into account. If the national
regulations provide for shifting the above-specified moment through formulating any additional conditions
are contrary to Directive 112. It is therefore apparent that Article 86, clause 10 (b), item 1 of the Polish Value-Added-Tax
Act of 11th March 2004 is not in agreement with Article 178 (s) of Directive 112 as the former sets forth a condition
that is not provided in the said EU regulation–namely, the right to have the output tax reduced by the input tax only
as part of the settlement for the month in which the taxpayer receives the invoice.
THE RIGHT TO INHERITANCE � BETWEEN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SOVIET LAW OF SUCCESSION AND THE CONCEPTION OF THE EU REGULATION 650/2012