English Summary 4/2026

As the deadline for applying for a reduction of preliminary tax payments for 2026 ends on September 30, 2026, and interest will be charged on tax arrears for the assessment year 2025 as of October 1, 2026, it is advisable to review the tax situation and the expected tax burden for the years 2025 and 2026 by October 1, 2026. Furthermore, the application for a refund of input VAT from other EU-countries for the year 2025 must be filed by September 30, 2026. Last but not least, financial statements with the balance sheet date December 31, 2025 have to be filed with the Austrian companies’ register until September 30, 2026. If this deadline is missed the company itself and its managing directors may be confronted with fines.

F. Kleemann / F. Popl

The Austrian legislator has recently adopted new reporting and documentation regulations regarding the Austrian exit taxation. While, for “new” cases, taxpayers will be required to provide annual evidence that no event triggering the tax assessment has occurred, legacy cases are subject to a one-time reporting requirement to be fulfilled by 31 December 2026. These new rules result in an increased compliance burden and may give rise to significant tax consequences if the relevant deadlines are missed.

D. Bauer / G. Gottholmseder / L. Andreaus

The update of 10 July 2026 to the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance decree on the use of certificates of residence for relief from withholding tax clarifies and supplements the comprehensive changes to the formal requirements for processing such certificates introduced on 19 December 2025.

The previous decree of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance of 9 December 2025 (2025-1.046.929, BMF-AV No. 180/2025) concerning the use of certificates of residence for relief from withholding tax in Austria has been repealed and replaced by a new decree dated 10 July 2026 (2026-0-590.709, BMF-AV No. 124/2026).

T. Hahn, J. Pimingstorfer 

On 24 June 2026, the European Commission published a proposal for a recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the field of taxation (“DAC Recast”). The proposal aims to consolidate the numerous amendments to the DAC framework (DAC1 to DAC9) into a single legal framework while introducing targeted simplifications to existing reporting and information exchange obligations. Together with the “Tax Omnibus” proposal published on the same date, the “DAC Recast” is intended to simplify the current regulatory framework and reduce the administrative burden in connection with existing tax reporting and compliance requirements.

M. Barz / D. Bauer

The simplification rule for intra-Community triangular transactions is currently a frequent focus in practice, particularly following the CJEU’s formalistic approach in the Luxury Trust Case, C-247/21 and the pending proceedings before the General Court concerning the possible ex nunc correction of failed triangular transactions. In a recent decision dated 13 July 2026 the Austrian Federal Finance Court addressed the substantive requirements of the triangular transaction simplification rule. The Austrian Federal Finance Court concluded that the requirements for applying the simplification rule were not met in the case at hand and held, inter alia, that a mere reference in the invoice to the reverse charge mechanism is not sufficient in itself to justify the application of the triangular transaction simplification.

P. Mayr / S. Tratlehner

In its judgment of 10 September 2026 in Case C‑565/24, the CJEU confirms that the special margin scheme for travel services also applies to structurally loss-making travel services, such as so-called “coffee trips”, where the travel costs are covered only through voluntary purchases of goods by the participants during the trip. As a consequence of applying the margin scheme, no input VAT may be deducted for the input costs of the trip. In addition, the CJEU held that the negative margin does not give rise to a claim to a possible input VAT refund either. The judgment is in line with the position of the Austrian tax authorities (resulting from no. 3051 of the Austrian VAT Guidelines), but nevertheless serves as a reminder that the margin scheme is relevant not only to travel agencies and tour operators, but potentially to any taxable person. Its application depends solely on the nature of the activities carried out. Accordingly, its potential application and its legal consequences—particularly the exclusion of input VAT deduction—must also be considered when accommodation, passenger transport, catering or related ancillary services are recharged, for example, between group companies.

E. Rohn / S.Tratlehner

If the grounds for an appeal are generated by AI and are characterized by numerous inaccuracies, the Austrian Federal Finance Court must refrain from considering the appeal and has to dismiss it according to a recent decision.

S. Papst / W. Gurtner

Tax disadvantages resulting from a past misjudgment cannot be retroactively remedied by reopening the proceedings if the facts of the case remain unchanged: Legal errors caused by tax office employees or by advice from “artificial intelligence” therefore do not lead to a reopening of the proceedings. The same applies to misleading (contradictory) information provided by the tax office, unless, in exceptional cases, criminal conduct can be proven.

S. Papst / R. Langeneder / G. Schaunig

The secretariat of the party’s lawyer submits an appeal to the Austrian Federal Finance Court via email. After having been informed by the Austrian Federal Finance Court that no original appeal was submitted by mail in due time, the representative sends the appeal by registered mail and requests a restoration to the previous condition: He alleged that he had also dropped the appeal in a mailbox in time, but the envelope had been lost. The Austrian Federal Finance Court denies the request for the restoration, because the alleged filing of the appeal letter in time is not plausible.

C. Endfellner

The Austrian Federal Finance Court recently clarified: Appeals (complaints, etc.) to the Financial Criminal Authority (Amt für Betrugsbekämpfung, ABB) cannot be filed with legal effect via FinanzOnline (FinOn). Such appeals must be rejected as inadmissible.

S. Papst / M. Kabler

If a tax audit results in an additional tax assessment and there is a suspicion of a tax offence, payment of a tax evasion surcharge (“Speeding Ticket”, Art 30a Austrian Act on Tax Offences, Finanzstrafgesetz) may, under certain conditions, result in immunity from penalties. The Austrian Ministry of Finance (BMF) published (new) guidelines on July 29^th 2026, the highlights of which are outlined in the discussions below.

S. Papst / V. Roszik

The Austrian Federal Finance Court recently confirmed the eligibility of a company engaged in the stripping of paint and coatings from metal components to claim energy tax refunds under the Austrian Energy Tax Refund Act (EAVG). According to the Austrian Federal Finance Court, the assessment of whether the principal focus of a business lies in the production of tangible goods within the meaning of Art 2(1) Austrian Energy Tax Refund Act must not be determined solely by reference to a specific turnover threshold. Rather, the assessment requires an overall evaluation of all relevant circumstances, including, inter alia, the undertaking’s classification under the ÖNACE system. The decisions of the Austrian Federal Finance Court are at variance with the position currently taken by the Austrian tax authorities in margin note 227 of the Energy Tax Refund Guidelines, according to which a business qualifies as a refund-entitled manufacturing enterprise only if more than 80% of its turnover is attributable to manufacturing activities. Extraordinary official appeals have been lodged against both decisions. It therefore remains to be seen whether, and to what extent, the Austrian Administrative Supreme Court will endorse the court’s interpretation of this issue.

S. Tratlehner / J. Pfandl / G. Punzhuber