Ina Ree­se Tax & Legal Prac­ti­ce – Flens­burg | Harrislee

Late payment surcharge despite the floods: Cologne Finance Court stands firm

Late payment surcharge despite the floods: Cologne Finance Court stands firm

Anyo­ne who sub­mits their inco­me tax return signi­fi­cant­ly late must expect to be char­ged a late fil­ing penal­ty. Even a natu­ral dis­as­ter does not alter this, as the Colo­gne Finan­ce Court has cla­ri­fied in a recent jud­ge­ment (jud­ge­ment of 22 April 2026, ref. 12 K 72/25).

What had happened?

In 2020, an employee had recei­ved short-time working allo­wan­ce in addi­ti­on to their regu­lar sala­ry. By law, such inco­me repla­ce­ment bene­fits requi­re the sub­mis­si­on of an inco­me tax return. The dead­line for this had been exten­ded due to the coro­na­vi­rus pan­de­mic and expi­red on 31 August 2022. Howe­ver, the tax­pay­er did not sub­mit their return until 30 April 2024 – a full 20 months after the dead­line had pas­sed and around 40 months after the end of the 2020 tax year.

The tax office sub­se­quent­ly impo­sed a late fil­ing penal­ty of 500 euros. The tax­pay­er chal­len­ged this decis­i­on in court, put­ting for­ward two argu­ments: first­ly, he had not been awa­re that he was requi­red to file a tax return. Second­ly, his tax advi­ser had been under con­sidera­ble strain due to the flood dis­as­ter in the Ahr Valley.

The court did not allow any exceptions

The Colo­gne Fis­cal Court dis­missed the cla­im. Under the law (Sec­tion 152(2)(1) of the Ger­man Fis­cal Code), a late fil­ing penal­ty must be impo­sed if an annu­al tax return is sub­mit­ted more than 14 months after the end of the calen­dar year. In this case, the delay amoun­ted to 40 months. The opti­on to pro­vi­de a valid reason for the delay, which would other­wi­se app­ly, is express­ly excluded whe­re the dead­line is excee­ded to this extent.

Nor did the refe­rence to the flood dis­as­ter help the clai­mant. The court found that the­re was a lack of spe­ci­fic details as to how and for how long the tax advi­ser had actual­ly been affec­ted. Fur­ther­mo­re, the flood dis­as­ter took place in July 2021, whilst the dead­line for fil­ing the tax return did not expi­re until over a year later. It is also a mat­ter of cour­se for a tax advi­ser to be awa­re of the obli­ga­ti­on to decla­re wage repla­ce­ment benefits.

No relief under the equity rule

The law pro­vi­des for leni­en­cy whe­re a per­son is requi­red by the tax office to sub­mit a tax return for the first time and, up until that point, had reasonable grounds to belie­ve that they were not requi­red to do so. The court also ruled out this pos­si­bi­li­ty. Anyo­ne recei­ving tax advice must be able to rely on qua­li­fied advice. In this con­text, no unavo­ida­ble mista­ke regar­ding the obli­ga­ti­on to file a tax return is apparent.

Surcharge higher than the tax liability

The surchar­ge is cal­cu­la­ted at 25 euros per month or part the­reof of delay. For 20 months, this amounts to exact­ly the sti­pu­la­ted 500 euros. It is worth not­ing that this surchar­ge excee­ded the actu­al back tax due. The Colo­gne Fis­cal Court did not regard this as a breach of the Con­sti­tu­ti­on: the sta­te has a legi­ti­ma­te inte­rest in ensu­ring that tax returns are sub­mit­ted on time, regard­less of the amount of tax assessed.

As the­re has as yet been no case law from the hig­hest court regar­ding the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of the equi­ty pro­vi­si­on, the court has gran­ted lea­ve to appeal. A final ruling by the Fede­ral Fis­cal Court is the­r­e­fo­re possible.

What does this mean for taxpayers?

The jud­ge­ment demons­tra­tes how con­sis­t­ent­ly the courts app­ly the pro­vi­si­ons on late pay­ment surchar­ges in the Ger­man Fis­cal Code. Anyo­ne who has recei­ved wage repla­ce­ment bene­fits such as short-time working allo­wan­ce, paren­tal allo­wan­ce or sick pay should defi­ni­te­ly check whe­ther this has given rise to an obli­ga­ti­on to file a tax return. If in any doubt, it is advi­sa­ble to seek tax advice at an ear­ly stage.

Source: Hau­fe: Tax

This post and the accom­pany­ing image were crea­ted with the help of AI and have been edi­to­ri­al­ly reviewed.

You might also be interested in this