In a ruling dated 18 June 2026 (Ref. VII B 110/25), the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) set aside a judgement of the Münster Fiscal Court and referred the case back for a fresh hearing. The reason: the Münster Finance Court had misunderstood the actual purpose of the claim and had thereby breached fundamental rules of procedure.
What were the proceedings about?
A claimant had been convicted, with the judgement having become final, of aiding and abetting organised smuggling. The competent Main Customs Office had subsequently assessed import duties. After insolvency proceedings had been opened in respect of the claimant’s assets, the main customs office lodged a total of 37 claims on the insolvency schedule. These claims were classified as arising from an intentional tort, which means that they would be excluded from any subsequent discharge of residual debt.
The claimant contested the claims filed. He justified this on the grounds that the reference numbers used in the insolvency schedule did not correspond to the reference numbers of the import duty assessment notices he had received. In his view, the claims filed were therefore not identical to the notices with which he was familiar. The Magistrates’ Court pointed out to him that he would have to pursue his objection in court within one month.
The claimant subsequently brought proceedings before the Münster Finance Court. He sought a declaration that the claims filed in the insolvency schedule did not exist, or, in the alternative, that they were not based on a tort. He expressly made it clear that his case did not concern the legality of the underlying import duty assessment notices.
The error made by the Tax Court
The Münster Finance Court dismissed the claim as inadmissible. It interpreted the claim as meaning that the claimant wished to challenge the import duty assessment notices themselves. However, the prescribed procedure for this is to lodge an objection and bring an action for annulment, not the action for a declaratory judgement that had been brought.
The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) criticised this error. In its view, the Finance Court had misinterpreted the actual claim. Whilst the court is not bound by the exact wording of a claim, it must not rule on anything other than what the claimant is actually seeking. The BFH expressly emphasises that the wording of a claim takes second place to its meaning and purpose. What is decisive is the parties’ submissions as a whole, from which their actual intention can be discerned.
The claimant had made it clear on several occasions that his sole concern was the review of the insolvency schedule, namely whether the claims filed actually corresponded to the notices of assessment of which he was aware. The Finance Court simply failed to recognise this core of the claim. In the view of the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH), this constitutes a serious procedural error which amounts to a breach of the fundamental principles of the proceedings.
What does this mean for clients?
This decision has practical implications in several areas:
- Insolvency proceedings: Any debtor who contests claims in the insolvency schedule must pursue this contestation through the courts within the prescribed time limit. The exact objective being pursued is crucial here, as different legal procedures are required depending on that objective.
- Claims: Courts are obliged to ascertain the actual relief sought, rather than merely reading the literal wording of a claim. Anyone who explains and clarifies the relief sought during the proceedings may expect the court to take this into account.
- Discharge of residual debt: Claims arising from intentional tortious acts are excluded from the discharge of residual debt. Anyone wishing to challenge this classification must choose the correct legal remedy, which, in individual cases, may have significant implications for subsequent financial recovery.
In such circumstances, particularly where claims filed in insolvency proceedings are to be contested, it is advisable to seek expert legal advice at an early stage in order to determine with certainty the correct course of legal action and the relevant time limits.
Source: BFH rulings
This article was created with the help of AI and has been editorially reviewed.
