Anyone bringing a claim before the tax court must comply with strict formal requirements. If a mistake is made, the claim risks being dismissed as inadmissible before its merits have even been examined. However, a recent ruling by the Federal Fiscal Court shows that taxpayers do not always lose out when things go wrong.
What had happened?
A claimant had been represented by a solicitor in her legal proceedings. The solicitor drafted the statement of claim and submitted it electronically to the tax court via the so-called EGVP. The EGVP is a general electronic court and administrative mailbox. The problem is that, under Section 52a(3) of the Financial Court Rules, pleadings must be submitted via one of the secure transmission channels specified therein. These include, in particular, the special electronic solicitors’ mailbox, or ‘beA’ for short. The EGVP, without a qualified electronic signature, does not meet this requirement.
The President of the Senate of the Finance Court nevertheless accepted the statement of claim, confirmed its receipt and even requested that grounds for the claim be provided. The lawyer submitted the statement of grounds within the time limit via his beA account. It was only well after the deadline for bringing the action had expired that the Finance Court pointed out that the original submission might have been invalid on procedural grounds. The court ultimately dismissed the action as inadmissible.
The Federal Fiscal Court upholds the claimant’s rights
In its judgement of 24 February 2026 (Case No. VII R 34/24, published on 2 July 2026), the Federal Fiscal Court ruled in favour of the claimant. The Federal Fiscal Court did confirm that the statement of claim had been filed in a formally invalid manner. However, it held that this could not be attributed solely to the lawyer or the claimant.
Another factor proved decisive: the Finance Court had breached its so-called duty of care in proceedings. This duty requires courts to draw the attention of parties to the proceedings to any apparent formal errors, provided there is still sufficient time to rectify them. In this specific case, the presiding judge had in fact checked that the statement of claim had been received and had even confirmed this. There would have been enough time before the expiry of the time limit for bringing the action to draw the solicitor’s attention to the procedural error. However, this was precisely what failed to happen.
The Federal Fiscal Court therefore ruled that the claimant should be granted reinstatement to the previous legal position. This means that, for legal purposes, she will be treated as though she had met the time limit for bringing the claim in good time, and the proceedings may continue on their merits.
What does this mean for taxpayers?
This judgement is significant in several respects. Firstly, it shows that courts are not merely passive recipients of written submissions. They bear active joint responsibility if they fail to point out identifiable errors in good time. Secondly, it highlights just how strict the formal requirements are in proceedings before the tax courts. Choosing the correct electronic transmission method is no trivial matter; it can determine whether a claim is admissible or inadmissible.
For anyone wishing to take a tax dispute to court, it is essential to check that the legally prescribed procedures for filing documents have been followed. If something does go wrong, however, the outcome may depend, in individual cases, on whether and when the court has issued a relevant notice. Anyone finding themselves in a similar situation should seek legal or tax advice at an early stage.
Source: Haufe: Tax
This article was created with the help of AI and has been editorially reviewed.
