The Dynamics of the Reversed Burden of Proof in Invalid Tax Invoice Disputes at the Tax Court

Addressing the conflict between the buyer's good faith (SE-27/PJ/2002) and Article 39A of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (UU KUP) in current tax court practice.

Disputes over tax invoices deemed invalid place the purchasing taxable entrepreneur (PKP) in the most vulnerable position in the entire VAT system: input tax already paid can be disallowed, with penalties, merely because another party in the chain — the invoice issuer — is considered problematic. Here, the dynamics of the burden of proof become the heart of the dispute.

Competing normative frameworks

Article 39A of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (UU KUP) criminalizes issuing or using tax invoices not based on genuine transactions. On the other side, the buyer's good-faith principle — traceable to circular SE-27/PJ/2002 and reinforced by numerous rulings — protects buyers who genuinely transacted, paid through traceable channels, and actually received the goods or services.

Tension arises because the authority's corrections often start from the issuer's status, while the buyer stands on the reality of its own transaction. The legal question: is a defect on the issuer's side enough to extinguish the crediting right of a good-faith buyer?

Proof in practice at the Tax Court

Rulings reveal a three-layer test. First, the existence of the transaction: a real delivery of goods or services, evidenced by contracts, purchase orders, delivery notes, acceptance minutes, and inventory records. Second, the flow of money: payment to an account matching the counterparty's identity is far more convincing than cash. Third, the flow of tax documents: invoice consistency with the e-invoice system and the issuer's periodic VAT returns.

A buyer able to present all three flows — goods, money, documents — in practice carries the burden of proof effectively, regardless of who formally bears it. That is the real face of the "reversed burden of proof" in these disputes: not an announced doctrine, but a procedural reality.

Practical mitigation for purchasing PKPs

• Know your counterparty: verify PKP status and invoice validity through official channels before and after material transactions.
• Avoid cash for significant transactions; match the recipient account to the seller's identity in the contract.
• Keep delivery evidence with discipline: delivery notes, weighbridge records, receiving photos, warehouse logs.
• Archive negotiation correspondence — it tells the story of a living transaction, not mere paperwork.
• When a correction arrives, build a single chronology uniting the flows of goods, money, and documents on one timeline.

Closing

The VAT system rests on a chain of trust among participants. Sound procedure should sanction abusers where they stand, not shift their risk onto honest buyers. Until that balance is settled in practice, a purchasing PKP's best defense is documentation that places its good faith beyond doubt.