With his action, the appellant claims restitutio ad integrum due to the non-delivery of a decision of the tax and revenue office regarding an alleged post-delivery certificate.
The appellant had lodged an appeal on 9 June 2011 against the changed tax assessments of 11 May 2011. These were based on the tax investigation office’s inquiries into the “O2 cases”. There, the Munich tax investigation office assigns financial ownership of fees payable for the work of freelance engineers, for which agencies had invoiced O2 and which the agencies had collected in overseas accounts, to the freelance engineers. The legal question of whether, in cases of conflict, financial ownership of payments from domestic end users to non-domicile agencies is to be assigned to a third party on the basis of an estimate of probabilities from investigations of the group, independent of the extent and timing of the agency payment to the third party and independent of the enforceability of a pecuniary claim from the third party, is pending review by the supreme court.
According to the appellant’s attorney of record, the tax and revenue office served the decision allegedly dated to 19.12.2012 on the 20.12.2012. The same denied delivery avowedly and with the production of evidence. A repeated delivery suggested by the department of inquiry failed upon the intervention of the legal redress office.
The Munich fiscal court upheld the position of the tax and revenue office and rejected the application for restitutio in integro.
On the appeal of the appellant regarding the rejection of the original appeal, the Federal Fiscal Court reversed the judgement of the fiscal court and remanded the matter to the fiscal court.
The disputed judgement rests on a procedural violation (§ 115 para. 2 No. 3 FGO – Tax Court Code); it violated the appellant’s right to be granted a fair hearing (Art. 103 para. 1 GG – Federal Constitution, §§ 96 para. 2, 119 No. 3 FGO).
Per existing Federal Fiscal Court case law, a procedural violation would exist if the fiscal court makes an assumption from a particular fact on the basis of anticipated appraisals of the evidence, without corresponding fact-finding measures and contrary to the assertion of some party.
Such is the case here.
The fiscal court made the assumption that the tax and revenue office had given notice of the relevant decision via Deutsche Post, using delivery methods in accordance with § 122 para. 5 AO – German Fiscal Code in conjunction with § 3 para. 1 VwZG – German Law on Service in Administrative Procedures. On this basis, it upheld that the decision had been delivered by placing the writ in the post box belonging to the office complex, as proved by the post-delivery certificate, because handing it to the recipient was not possible (§ 3 para. 2 VwZG) in connection with § 180 sentence 2 ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure).
The fiscal court came to this finding in a procedurally incorrect manner.
Indeed, the post-delivery certificate, as an official deed (§ 418 para. 1 ZPO), ordinarily provides proof of delivery. A false certification cannot therefore be proven purely by the assertion of a sequence of events contrary to the certified one. To this end, it is all the more necessary to demonstrate an alternative course of events to the official one and to substantiate this course of events, particularly if the appellant can demonstrate conditions which are sufficient to demonstrate misconduct by the post office during the delivery and therefore the occurrence of false certification in the post-delivery certificate.
This is the case in the case in question. The appellant’s attorney of record has in the first instance made submissions regarding the consistent occupation of the office on the alleged day of delivery and regarding the architectural design of the office, which would exclude the possibility that – as represented in the post-delivery certificate – delivery could not have been achieved by handover in the business area of the office on the day of delivery.
Indeed, the fiscal court accepts that this submission is “true”. Nevertheless, “considering general experience”, it has not ruled out the possibility that delivery per § 180 sentence 1 ZPO to the place of business’s letterbox was permitted and required. To this end, the fiscal court has not treated the alleged fact as true, but effectively considered the converse to already have been proven.
Likewise, therein lies an unwarranted pre-emption of the evidence offered by the appellant’s side for its presentation of the facts of the matter. The tax and revenue service must investigate the facts from the agency (§ 76 para. 1 FGO). It is not bound in this matter to the affected parties’ submissions and requests to present evidence. It may however ordinarily waive a hearing of the deponents named by the parties only if it assumes the circumstances to be testified by the deponents to be wholly correct to the benefit of the affected party. Therefore, a truthful allegation would lift the need for the collection of evidence only if the court genuinely treated the alleged facts as true and did not act in a contradictory fashion. It also cannot be ruled out that the fiscal court would arrive at a different conclusion after questioning the witnesses.
The Federal Fiscal Court has considered the strict requirements for the substantiated presentation of a different course of action as stated in the delivery certificate to be fulfilled.
In this respect, the firm's precise opening hours on the contested delivery day, as well as the presence of the lawyers' employees, as well as the company-wide process procedures for inbound processing and deadline control, were carried out and proved for each individual fact. Corresponding documentation and control mechanisms are just as important as the dispute. The architectural design of the office was likewise to be substantiated with floor plans and photos. This was also motivated by the location of the office in an office complex with a number of parties and a common letterbox system on the ground floor. That delivery by Deutsche Post, particularly in the pre-Christmas period relevant to the dispute, is substantially defective was demonstrated by the presentation of original reporting by NDR Television from 3 December 2014.
To conclude, the key fact is that the widespread practice of postal workers to deliver letters regarding post-delivery certificates into some letterbox, without first having undertaken to personally deliver them to a consistently occupied office, provokes legal disputes such as the present one. It would be welcome if the revenue authorities were to account for this state of affairs within the scope of their due exercise of discretion and if they were to remedy taxpayers’ desire for legal protection in a way which avoided litigation.
Client support partner, attorney, certified lawyer for tax law, corporate and commercial law
Focus: Tax law, tax offence cases, negotiations at tax office, conducting legal proceedings
Languages: German, English, French
Head of procedural law, team law & tax
Focus: Tax law, tax offence cases, procedural law, translations
Languages: German, English
Head of forensics, team attorney secretariat
Focus: File inspections, management of law firms
Languages: German, English, Polish, Russian
Head of team tax and accounting
Focus: Tax audits, tax returns, accounting
Languages: German, English, French, Turkish
Head of lawyer assistance, team law & tax
Focus: Tax law, assisting legal proceedings, corporate law, general meetings
Languages: German, English, Turkish
Team attorney secretariat
Focus: Evening secretariat, translations, inspection of files at authorities and courts
Languages: German, English, French
Quality assurance by certified training of staff in their specialist fields.
Continuous training in the areas of tax law, tax offence cases, commercial and corporate law, procedural law.
Continuous training of our language skills.
The freedom of our clients.
Tax and law enforcement authorities.
The consistent and success-oriented representation of our clients.
Our clients are part of the whole process and together we make a team. Together we will fight for your freedom. After a detailed consultation you can decide for yourself which legal action needs to be selected. From the safest to the most risky path - we are your reliable law firm and are always at your side! Together we create added value and build trust and a personal and lasting partnership that continues to exist!
Specialised preventive consulting
Client representation at escalation
With us you can face the struggle!
Optimal preparation; competent tax consulting.
Reliable success and cost forecast.
Cooperation with your tax consultant and auditor.
Efficient enforcement of your rights and settlement negotiations with the tax authorities. Legal representation before the court in the worst case.
Sovereign defence in criminal tax proceedings
Because freedom knows no bounds!
Protection against consistent tax enforcement.
Exhaustion of all legal means.
Defence with precise defence strategy in the investigation proceedings.
Experience in conducting negotiations with the tax authorities
We fight for your rights!
Competent and result-oriented representation before the tax authorities.
We will represent you in settlement negotiations to ensure faster settlement of disputes.
In the case of litigation, you benefit from our sector-specific litigation experience!
Experienced liability advice for tax consultants
You can rely on us!
Supporting tax consultans in special issues regarding tax, in dispute with the tax authorities, in dispute with the client.
Review of the liability risks as part of reliable preventive consulting and of allegations of liability as part of defence consultation.
Best links with research and science. Thanks to the affiliation with a variety of professional associations. We are members of: International Bar Association, Chamber of tax consultants Hessen, Association of German Jurists (Deutscher Juristentag) e.V., German Bar Association, Scientific Association for Enterprise and Corporate Law (VGR) e.V.
Herzlichen Dank für das schöne vorweihnachtliche Geschenk. Da ja auch mein Fall sich erfolgreich entwickelt hat, ist die Freude umso größer.
Frankfurt, Dezember 2016
Vielen Dank für das Klartext-Gespräch! In schwierigen Situationen benötige ich genau diese Art der Kommunikation :)
Frankfurt, Dezember 2015
I want to thank you, I have the feeling you did a terrific good job!
Paris, February 2016
Es ist immer wieder eine Freude Ihre Emails zu lesen. Da hat alles Hand und Fuss! Ich bin sehr zufrieden mit ihrem Vorgehen und bin zuversichtlich, dass wir das Ding schaukeln.
Frankfurt, März 2016
... I would like to add that I have always been very happy with the job you have been doing and lm very happy that I have you as my lawyer.
London, February 2016
Vielen Dank für die Infos. Ich fühle mich bei Ihnen wirklich sehr, sehr gut aufgehoben!
Frankfurt, Februar 2016
Thank you for the information and the good work that you are performing on my behalf!
Munich, March 2016
I cc Patricia and Antje at LedererLaw whom I unreservedly recommend!
Bad Homburg, Dezember 2015
Congratulations for your hard work in bringing this good news.
Munich, April 2016
Thank you for the information. You sound to be well on top of things.
London, May 2016
Tax Audit, Restaurants and Bars, Tax Lawyer Investigation Germany, Financial Control, Contractors Investigations, HMRC Germany
Restaurateurs, freelancers and private limited companies (GmbH) in the fields of IT, commerce, trade and industry, partners - managing directors, jointly liable members and tax consultants.
These professions are often the focus of tax authorities on the basis of estimations and high tax payments. IT - contractors with threatening tax payments and deportations and enforcement of foreign assets are the focus of the tax investigation.
Presenting individual and group cases before the tax courts.
Efficient and cost-saving legal clarity in the case of outstanding tax issues.
Contracting partners of banks and IT - companies
Contractual cooperation is often not recognized by the tax office. Allegation: Agencies were established in tax havens. Payments to these agencies are classified as revenue in trust accounts and will be taxed retroactively.
Is the economic ownership of this agency attributed to the client? Do the agencies and their consultants have to be taken into joint liability? Are the clients entitled to claims for damages against the tax office on the basis of one-sided investigations, inactivity or failure to respect the European tax legislation?
In these cases, our law has to strictly conduct success-oriented individual and legal proceedings in group. These cases are reviewed by all the German and European authorities.
Become a part of our firm and a part of our success story!
Do you pass your exams with good marks, possess an alert mind and perseverance?
Are you a team player who does not hide from problems, but rather takes responsibility at crucial moments? Do you have a good understanding of economic and international contexts and have very good knowledge of English and German?
If so, you have all the basic requirements for a position in our firm. You can expect an interesting environment, fascinating mandates, complex problems and highly motivated, friendly colleagues.
If you are interested, please send your complete application documents by email.
We look forward to receiving your application!
Your future at LedererLaw
Need tax defence advice?
Do not hesitate to contact us immediately!
Fon: +49 69 949 4444 2–0
Fax: +49 69 949 4444 2–9
Firm for International Tax Law
Patricia Lederer, lawyer
Specialised lawyer for corporate and commercial law,
Specialised lawyer for tax law in Germany
D-60388 Frankfurt am Main, Deutschland
Phone: +49 69 949 4444 2–0
Fax: +49 69 949 4444 2–9
VAT-Identification no.: DE 220287117
The lawyers of the firm are licensed under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany and members of the Bar Association of Frankfurt am Main, Bockenheimer Anlage 36, 60322 Frankfurt am Main.
Tel.: +49 69 170 098-01
Fax: +49 69 170 098-50
Professional liability insurance is provided by ERGO
ERGO Versicherung AG
The geographical scope of the insurance coverage covers activities in Europe and thus meets the demands of regulations pursuant to § 51 of the Federal Lawyer's Act (BRAO).