Input VAT deduction for invoices during a change of company name
The Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Fiscal Court of Berlin-Brandenburg) ruled in its judgment of 12 November 2025 that input VAT deduction from invoices is not possible if, at the time the supply was made and the invoice was issued, the supplying trader did not yet exist under the name stated in the invoice. The case concerned a situation in which the supplying trader was in the process of changing its name and was already using the future name, although the previous name still applied at that time.
The decision concerns the requirements for invoices under § 14 UStG (German VAT Act) and the input VAT deduction under § 15 UStG. An appeal on points of law has been filed against the judgment. The proceedings are pending before the Bundesfinanzhof (BFH, Federal Fiscal Court) under case reference V R 18/26.
Decision of the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg
New name was not yet effective at the relevant time
According to the view taken by the Finanzgericht, the invoice did not meet the requirements for input VAT deduction. In the disputed invoices, the supplying trader had already stated the new, future name. However, that name did not yet exist at the time the invoice was issued.
According to the decision, the decisive factor was that, at the time the supply was made and the invoice was issued, the previous name of the company still applied. In the assessment of the Finanzgericht, an invoice that instead already shows the later name does not permit input VAT deduction.
Dispute concerning incoming invoices and input VAT amounts
The proceedings were based on a special VAT audit at the claimant. The auditor took the view that input VAT totaling EUR 85,638.70 from incoming invoices issued by a GmbH should not be recognized. This was justified on the basis that this GmbH had only been established by agreement dated 24 June 2021, whereas the incoming invoices were dated 3 May 2021 and the related delivery notes originated from the period January to May 2021.
At those times, the GmbH named in the invoices had not yet existed. Another GmbH was named as the predecessor company, whose corporate purpose comprised services in the fields of physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy.
The defendant followed the findings of the special VAT audit and amended the notices assessing advance VAT payments for the 1st to 4th calendar quarters of 2021. In the subsequent objection proceedings, the claimant submitted its annual VAT return for 2021 and included the disputed input VAT amounts in it. By objection decision dated 11 November 2024, the defendant assessed VAT for 2021 and did not take into account the input VAT from the invoices concerned.
Claimant’s arguments
Clear ascertainability of name and address
The claimant argued that, under § 31 para. 2 UStDV (German VAT Implementing Regulation), it is sufficient if the name and address of the supplying trader and of the recipient of the supply can be clearly ascertained on the basis of the designations used in the invoice. In its view, any address is sufficient, provided that the supplying trader or the recipient of the supply can be reached at that address at the time the invoice is issued.
In this regard, it referred to case law according to which it is not decisive whether the supplying trader actually carries out its economic activity at the address stated in the invoice. It also relied on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which invoice details are intended to enable a link to be established between a specific economic transaction and a specific economic operator, namely the issuer of the invoice.
VAT identification number and commercial register details
The claimant further stated that a VAT identification number had been indicated in the invoices and that this number had existed continuously. In its view, this was an essential source of information for identifying the supplier and for allocating the economic transaction to a specific economic operator.
In addition, commercial register details had also been listed, which had existed since the incorporation as an Unternehmergesellschaft. In the claimant’s opinion, the input VAT deduction from the invoices was therefore to be granted because the supplier had remained identical and there had merely been a change of name that did not affect its identity.
Further objections by the claimant
The claimant also argued that it was in fact possible for the same company to appear in business dealings under these details even before registration of the company name and business address used by it. It also pointed out that, for the VAT assessment, the corporate purpose of the supplying trader entered in the commercial register was irrelevant.
At the oral hearing, the claimant additionally relied on case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to that case law, input VAT deduction must be granted under certain conditions even if the supplier does not in fact exist. The Finanzgericht ultimately did not follow this argument.
Legal assessment of the invoice details
Importance of the correct designation of the supplier
Under § 15 UStG, input VAT deduction requires, among other things, that the trader holds a proper invoice within the meaning of § 14 UStG. The required information includes, in particular, the name and address of the supplying trader and of the recipient of the supply.
In the case decided, the main issue was not simply whether an address was reachable. Rather, the decisive issue in the dispute was whether it is sufficient to state a name that did not yet exist at the time the invoice was issued and was only to become effective in the future.
The Finanzgericht answered this in the negative. In its view, the invoice was not proper because it did not contain the name of the supplying trader that was valid at the relevant time.
Distinction from mere identifiability
The claimant relied on the fact that the identity of the supplier could be established on the basis of further details such as the VAT identification number and commercial register data. However, the Finanzgericht did not consider this sufficient to allow input VAT deduction from the disputed invoices.
The decision therefore emphasizes the formal requirements for invoices in connection with changes of company name. According to the decision of the Finanzgericht, the fact that a company is regarded economically or organizationally as the same entity did not mean that the name not yet existing at the time the invoice was issued was harmless.
Appeal proceedings before the Bundesfinanzhof
Leave granted only after complaint against refusal of leave to appeal
The appeal on points of law did not arise directly from the judgment of the fiscal court. The Fifth Senate of the Bundesfinanzhof admitted it by order of 29 April 2026 following the claimant’s complaint against refusal of leave to appeal. The order granting leave is a decision of the Fifth Senate of the Bundesfinanzhof that has not been officially published, bearing the ECLI identifier ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:B.290426.VB118.25.0.
The Bundesfinanzhof expressly admitted the appeal on points of law in order to clarify whether the recipient of the supply may be denied input VAT deduction solely because, during a change of name, the supplying trader had already used its new, future name in the invoice.
Pending proceedings V R 18/26
The appeal proceedings are being conducted before the Bundesfinanzhof under case reference V R 18/26. They were announced in the list of new pending proceedings published in July 2026 and assigned to the topic “input VAT deduction/change of company name”.
Since the proceedings are pending before the Bundesfinanzhof, there is not yet any final decision by the Bundesfinanzhof on this legal question. The further outcome remains to be seen. The specialist professional development press ranks the proceedings among the most practically relevant new appeal proceedings of July 2026 in the field of VAT.
Practical significance for businesses
The decision concerns a constellation that may arise in particular in the case of changes of company name, corporate law changes and ongoing supply relationships. During such phases, invoices are often prepared or used with new company details even though the change has not yet become effective in all relevant respects.
The following points, in particular, may be significant for input VAT deduction:
- the name of the supplier valid at the time of the supply and issuance of the invoice,
- the clear allocation of the invoice to a specific economic operator,
- the details required under § 14 UStG,
- the significance of further identifying features such as VAT identification number or commercial register data,
- the procedural status where legal questions have not yet been finally clarified.
The decision of the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg shows that using a name in an invoice that will only apply in the future can have significant VAT consequences. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the legal question is now pending before the Bundesfinanzhof.
Advice in tax law on questions of input VAT deduction
Invoice details, changes of company name and input VAT deduction are often closely connected with tax and corporate law processes. Particularly in the case of disputed input VAT amounts or ongoing tax audits and special audits, a careful assessment of the specific facts may be necessary. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises companies, investors and high-net-worth individuals on tax law issues; further information can be found under legal advice in tax law.
