Anyone filing a claim with the tax court must use the correct electronic submission channel. If an error occurs in this process, the claim may be dismissed as inadmissible, even if it is well-founded in substance. The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has now clarified, in a judgement of 24 February 2026 (Case No. VII R 34/24), under what circumstances those affected may nevertheless be granted a second chance.
What had happened?
A claimant was represented by a solicitor in her proceedings before the tax court. Her solicitor submitted the statement of claim electronically, though not via the prescribed special electronic solicitor’s mailbox (beA), but via the so-called EGVP (Electronic Court and Administrative Mailbox). Furthermore, the required qualified electronic signature was missing.
The Tax Court noticed the error but initially remained silent. The presiding judge even confirmed receipt of the statement of claim and asked the claimant to provide grounds for her claim. It was not until well after the deadline for bringing the claim had expired that the court pointed out that the statement of claim might not have been validly lodged. The Tax Court subsequently dismissed the claim as inadmissible.
What does the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) have to say about this?
The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) ruled in favour of the claimant in the appeal proceedings. It is true that the statement of claim had not in fact been lodged in the manner prescribed by section 52a(3) and (4) of the Code of Procedure for Tax Courts (FGO). This procedural irregularity is, in principle, the responsibility of the legal representative.
In this specific case, however, the Tax Court had breached its so-called duty of care in proceedings. This refers to the court’s obligation to draw the attention of the parties to the proceedings to any obvious errors, provided this can still be done in good time. The presiding judge had checked and confirmed the incorrect filing, and there would have been sufficient time before the expiry of the time limit for bringing the action to draw the lawyer’s attention to the easily identifiable procedural error.
As the court failed to do so, the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) held that the claimant was Restoration to the previous status to grant. This means that she will be treated as though she had met the deadline in good time, and the proceedings can continue on their merits.
What does this mean for clients?
This judgement is particularly relevant for anyone involved in tax disputes before the tax court. It highlights two points: Firstly, written submissions must be filed via the beA system and with the correct digital signature; otherwise, the claim risks being declared inadmissible. Secondly, the court has a duty to draw the parties’ attention to any errors it identifies at an early stage.
- Submission via EGVP without a qualified signature is not sufficient to validly bring proceedings before the tax court.
- If the court breaches its duty of care, an application for reinstatement may be made even if the deadline has been missed.
- However, reinstatement is conditional upon there being no fault on the part of the claimant or his solicitor alone.
Anyone who is unsure whether a claim that has been filed or any other time-sensitive submission meets the formal requirements should clarify this with a solicitor or tax adviser as soon as possible.
Source: BFH press releases
This article was created with the help of AI and has been editorially reviewed.
