Even in 2020, the BFH will be the judge for the case. Finance Minister, Olaf Scholz, is preparing already for the critical judge of Egmont Kulosa.
By the Prussian king Frederick the Great is handed down that he would not interfere in the Jurisdiction of the country, when he sensed somewhere gross injustice – as in the case of the müller Christian Arnold. The operation of a water mill, but got into Distress, as to him, up the river, the Baron of Gersdorff with a new carp pond abgrub the water. Prompt the Miller ended up in court, because he remained the due rent is guilty. He was sentenced, his mill was auctioned off. The indignant Fridericus Rex, the king. Unceremoniously, he let the judge lock up, because: “A judicial Collegium, the injustice carries on, is more dangerous and worse than a gang of thieves.”
The Federal Finance Minister of the year 2020 is not for Olavus Rex. Olaf Scholz is a social Democrat, and not have to stress extra for the office he took an oath on the Constitution and on the separation of powers. But also the Lord over Germany’s public finances has vested by Section 122, paragraph 2 of the financial court order – a kind of “king’s law”. This gives him exclusive access to the judiciary, namely, the Federal Finance court (BFH), one of the highest German courts.
This right, Olaf Scholz, has learned, as the SZ, at 5. March made use of. Since then, the Ministry of Finance third party in a dispute before the Federal fiscal court with the file number X R 33/19. The advantage is that The Ministry gets in a delicate procedure now have full access to the file – and may also report self-admonition to speak. In a further case (case X R 20/19) runs it the same way.
For tax experts, this process is a clear indication that it is an important matter, which is financially important. And indeed, It is an area that is for the state finances, but also for the atmosphere in the country, especially in the case of older voters, of immense importance – since 2005, the current taxation of the pensions. You angered more and more retirees, because of the tax burden from year to year, a growing number of elderly people. And not a few of them feel from the Treasury similar to kujoniert as the Müller Christian Arnold in Prussia.
Up to 21 million retirees, the decision has been eagerly awaited is likely to
A man, however, the Federal government must fear the Minister of Finance in this dispute, especially: It is called Egmont Kulosa and professionals is under control as a luminary. But even more important is: As Vice-Chairman of the tenth BFH Senate, he is responsible for “retirement income and pension” – the pension taxation – even for the case with the reference characters X, R 33/19. In a previous expert commentary Kulosa, has already made it clear that he considers the current pension taxation for in Parts unconstitutional, because they on a forbidden “double taxation” is also.
Now it won’t be long until it comes to a Showdown between the Federal government and Federal judges in matters of pension taxation. BFH spokesman Volker Pfirrmann, even judges of the 1. Senate, said the Süddeutsche Zeitung: “The intention is to come to a decision.” Because of the importance of the matter, there are going to be at the Federal fiscal court in Munich, probably an oral hearing, unless an applicant disagree with the reference to the tax secret. So the final decision is usually released two to three months later.
But already in that Up to 21 million retirees are likely to this day has been eagerly awaited. Again and again, so Pfirrmann, reported retired asked already on the phone to the BFH, when it was finally over.
The matter is complicated. According to the 2005, which came into force the Reform of the pension taxation the pensions, the way in a 35-year transitional arrangement until 2040 step taxed at a higher and higher share: in 2005, only half of the pension under the tax obligation, it will be 2040 full 100 percent (see chart). Who, for example, 2020 retirement year of Retirement is essential – must already pay tax on 80 percent of his pension.
“We now need a tax brake in the pension.”
That the state recognises in turn, since 2005, higher pension expenses as “special charges” to spare the pensions for tax purposes, not appeased many. This was intended by the architects of the Reform, as a compensation for the increasing pension taxation. The state is, so the goal should not ask the citizens of two Changes to the Fund during the working life, the contributions to the pension funds, and then a second Time in the event of retirement, payment of pensions. Such “double taxation” the ban, the Federal constitutional court in 2002. The new “deferred taxation” to avoid this.
However, experts such as the Mannheim tax Advisor Henry brown and the saarbrücken financial mathematician Klaus Schindler point to the evidence that up to 22 percent of the pensions are double-taxed. The Ministry of Finance contradicts such statements with the note: “since 2005 the applicable legal principles were reviewed at the time the Constitution and since then, in a series of decisions of the Federal Finance court and the Federal constitutional court for constitutional findings.” Long ago, the BFH on the case is received with the reference characters X, R 33/19 a 20-page opinion by the Ministry of Finance, date: 8. June. The Letter, drafted by the responsible Department head, ends up with clear findings: In the present case, there is no “double taxation”.
The liberals don’t want to wait for the decision of the judges in Munich: “The double taxation of pensions,” said Deputy party leader, Christian Dürr says, “leads to a disproportionate burden on small and medium incomes”. The “Grand coalition” got “the theme so far on the left”. So it could not go further criticized drought and calls for: “Olaf Scholz, now has to Wake up and make it clear how the risk of double taxation can be prevented.”
The Liberal makes a change to the proposal: “We now need a tax brake in the pension,” he says. “So it is conceivable that the increase in taxation as a share of the pension by one percent per year to 0.5 percent, reduce”. This would reduce the “load clear”. Because, as drought, “it is better to forgo the additional tax revenue from pensioners, as the state exposes himself to the suspicion of double taxation.” Only one question remains: Does Olaf Scholz do that too?