VAT exemption for intra-Community supplies is a key issue for businesses that sell goods to customers in other European Union Member States. The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 13 November 2025 in case C-639/24 FLO VENEER confirms that a tax authority cannot refuse VAT preference solely because the taxpayer did not provide documents in exactly the format described in Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011.
In the CJEU judgment, the term “VAT exemption” is used because this is the language of Directive 2006/112/EC. In Polish tax practice, however, intra-Community supplies of goods are more commonly discussed as being subject to the 0% VAT rate. For businesses operating in Poland, the practical point is the same: both terms refer to a preferential VAT treatment, provided the required conditions are met.
What case C-639/24 was about
The case concerned the Croatian company FLO VENEER d.o.o., which supplied oak logs to a customer in Slovenia. During a tax audit, the company presented written statements from the customer, invoices, shipment certificates and CMR consignment notes.
The issue was therefore not a complete lack of documentation. The dispute focused on whether the absence of a full documentary set matching the requirements of Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 could automatically deprive the taxpayer of the right to VAT preference.
This was the core of the dispute. The tax authorities adopted a formalistic approach, whereas the CJEU focused on whether an actual intra-Community supply of goods had taken place.
What the CJEU ruled
The Court held that VAT preference cannot be denied solely because the taxpayer failed to present evidence exactly as listed in Article 45a. If a taxpayer does not rely on the presumption provided for in that provision, the tax authority must still assess all the evidence submitted and determine whether the goods were genuinely dispatched or transported to another Member State.
In practice, this means that Article 45a:
- is not the only basis for assessing the transaction,
- does not create a closed list of admissible evidence,
- gives the taxpayer a specific evidentiary presumption, but the lack of that presumption does not prevent the taxpayer from proving an intra-Community supply by other means.
This is a highly important conclusion for businesses selling goods across the EU, because it reduces the risk of an excessively formalistic approach during tax audits.
Why this judgment matters for businesses
In many companies, the problem is not that documents do not exist at all. Much more often, the difficulty is that:
- the documentation is split between sales, logistics and accounting,
- some documents reach the company late,
- the available evidence does not exactly match the model described in Article 45a,
- the documents are inconsistent or do not form one clear transaction trail.
For that reason, the CJEU judgment has practical importance not only in disputes with tax authorities, but also when designing internal compliance procedures. It shows that what matters is not the formal title of a document, but its evidentiary value and consistency with the rest of the file.
This does not mean that documentation is no longer important. On the contrary, a well-prepared documentary set remains the basis for the safe application of the 0% VAT rate to intra-Community supplies of goods.
How this works in Polish tax practice
In the Polish context, businesses should remember that intra-Community supplies of goods are generally discussed in terms of the 0% VAT rate in Poland, rather than “exemption” in the everyday sense. This distinction matters in practice, because a transaction taxed at 0% usually preserves the right to deduct input VAT.
In practical terms, a business in Poland should ensure:
- the correct VAT EU status of the customer,
- proper evidence of the movement of goods out of Poland,
- the ability to demonstrate that the goods reached the customer in another Member State,
- consistency across commercial, logistics and accounting records.
This is why the CJEU judgment does not remove documentary obligations. It merely confirms that a tax authority cannot stop its assessment at the finding that the taxpayer lacks documents in one specific format.
In day-to-day business, the risk is particularly high where the transport is organised by the customer or where several parties are involved in the supply chain, such as a carrier, an intermediary warehouse and the final recipient. In these cases, obtaining a full standard set of documents may be more difficult, but that does not automatically mean the taxpayer loses the right to VAT preference. After the CJEU ruling, the key issue is whether the business can demonstrate the actual course of the transaction on the basis of all available and mutually consistent evidence.
What evidence may matter for intra-Community supplies
After this judgment, it still makes sense to collect the widest possible and most coherent set of supporting documents. In practice, relevant evidence may include:
- CMR consignment notes,
- proof of receipt of goods,
- carrier documents,
- warehouse records,
- invoices,
- commercial correspondence with the customer,
- proof of payment for the goods or transport,
- statements from the customer,
- documents confirming receipt of the goods in the destination country.
The main point is that the documents should together create a logical and consistent story of the transaction. Based on them, the tax authority should be able to determine:
- who bought the goods,
- when the goods were released,
- who organised the transport,
- where the goods were transported,
- who confirmed receipt.
The more organised the documentation, the stronger the taxpayer’s position and tax security.
What a company should do after this judgment
The CJEU judgment should be treated as a signal to review internal procedures. This is especially relevant for companies that regularly make intra-Community supplies within the European Union.
In practice, businesses should consider:
- organising a clear procedure for collecting documents for each supply,
- assigning responsibility for each type of document,
- connecting the flow of sales, transport and accounting records,
- checking on an ongoing basis whether the documentation is sufficient to prove the actual course of the transaction,
- reviewing more complex sales models in which transport is organised by the customer or involves several intermediaries.
For businesses that make regular intra-Community supplies, tax advisory in Poland may be particularly useful, especially where a review of VAT procedures or a risk assessment is needed.
The key takeaway from the CJEU judgment
The most important conclusion from the CJEU judgment of 13 November 2025 can be reduced to one principle: the absence of documents corresponding exactly to Article 45a of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 cannot be the sole ground for refusing VAT preference for an intra-Community supply.
For businesses, this means two things at once:
- greater protection against excessive formalism by tax authorities,
- no release from the obligation to document transactions carefully.
This judgment may also matter at the tax audit or dispute stage. If the authority focuses only on the lack of documents matching Article 45a, the taxpayer gains a strong argument that the case must be assessed more broadly, taking into account the full body of evidence. In practice, this can be highly important for businesses that genuinely completed an intra-Community supply but, for organisational or operational reasons, did not collect documentation in an ideal model.
The safest approach therefore remains unchanged. Businesses should aim for the most complete documentation possible and organise internal processes in a way that allows them to demonstrate the actual course of an intra-Community supply on the basis of the entire evidentiary record.
