In the case of intra-Community supplies, businesses must, as a general rule, be able to prove that the goods have actually reached another EU Member State. The confirmation of arrival, in which the customer confirms receipt of the goods in the country of destination, plays an important role in this regard.<\/p>\n
However, this proof may be lacking, particularly in cases where the customer collects the goods themselves. In its judgement of 18 December 2025 (Case No. V R 3\/25), the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH)<\/strong> clarified that the absence of a confirmation of arrival does not automatically result in the tax exemption being withdrawn.<\/p>\n BFH: Confirmation of receipt not mandatory for protection of legitimate expectations<\/strong><\/p>\n In the case in question, a tax adviser sold a car to a Romanian company via an online portal in 2018. Prior to the sale, he had the buyer\u2019s VAT registration number verified by the Federal Central Tax Office (BZSt)*.<\/strong> He also requested an extract from the commercial register and checked the identity document with a photograph of the person collecting the vehicle upon collection.<\/p>\n (BZSt*: Bundeszentralamt f\u00fcr Steuern)<\/strong><\/p>\n The contract of sale stipulated that the buyer was to deregister the vehicle in Germany and transport it to Romania. A certificate of arrival was issued by the seller, but the buyer failed to return the completed form despite repeated requests. It later transpired that the car had been re-registered in Germany.<\/strong><\/p>\n The tax office therefore refused to grant the tax exemption<\/strong>. The Hesse Finance Court (Finanzgericht Hessen) also regarded the lack of evidence as problematic.<\/p>\n However, the Federal Fiscal Court ruled in favour of the claimant. In its view, the protection of legitimate expectations under Section 6a(4), first sentence, of the Value Added Tax Act (UStG) does not require a confirmation of delivery to be in place.<\/p>\n The decisive factor is whether the trader could, at the time of supply, rely in good faith on the information provided by the customer. A confirmation of delivery can only be issued once the transport has been completed. It cannot therefore be a mandatory prerequisite for the protection of legitimate expectations to apply at the time of supply.<\/p>\n Other forms of evidence may also be relevant<\/strong><\/p>\n The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) also points out that, under the relevant regulations, the confirmation of arrival is only one of several possible forms of evidence. Evidence may therefore also be provided by other admissible means.<\/p>\n In this specific case, therefore, the buyer\u2019s written undertaking, set out in the contract, to take the vehicle to another EU country, together with the other due diligence measures complied with by the seller, was sufficient.<\/p>\n However, the ruling does not mean that the confirmation of delivery will be meaningless in future.<\/strong> It remains an important and reliable proof of tax exemption. Rather, the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) makes it clear that the mere absence of such a confirmation does not automatically preclude the supplier\u2019s right to protection of legitimate expectations.<\/p>\n What checks should companies document?<\/strong><\/p>\n Particularly in the case of collections by previously unknown customers, companies should continue to ensure that their due diligence measures are fully documented. According to the ruling, this includes, in particular:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This makes it clear that the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) is relaxing the requirements regarding the protection of legitimate expectations, but not the requirements regarding the entrepreneur\u2019s duty of care.<\/strong><\/p>\n Counter-example: M\u00fcnster Finance Court highlights the limits of the protection of legitimate expectations<\/p>\n A judgement by the M\u00fcnster Finance Court dated 19 May 2026 (Case No. 15 K 1452\/25 U) demonstrates that the Federal Finance Court\u2019s decision does not constitute a carte blanche for a lack of evidence.<\/strong><\/p>\n A car dealer had purchased 16 vehicles in the Netherlands and subsequently sold them to customers in Serbia, Ukraine and Poland. Despite repeated requests, he failed to provide the tax office with either certificates of arrival, proof of export or any other substitute documentation. It was not until years later that he also stated that the vehicles had not arrived in Germany at all. Previously, however, he had himself declared intra-Community acquisitions in his advance VAT returns and claimed the corresponding input tax deduction.<\/p>\n The M\u00fcnster Finance Court denied the tax exemption and also rejected the claim for protection of legitimate expectations under Section 6a(4) of the Value Added Tax Act (UStG).<\/p>\n\n