Ina Ree­se Tax & Legal Prac­ti­ce – Flens­burg | Harrislee

Workplace health promotion: What employers can provide tax- and contribution-free

A tax-free allo­wan­ce of 600 euros per employee for health pro­mo­ti­on – but, accor­ding to the Fede­ral Fis­cal Court (BFH), accom­mo­da­ti­on and meals are not tax-free. 
Workplace health promotion: What employers can provide tax- and contribution-free

Workplace health promotion: What employers can provide tax- and contribution-free

Employ­ers who invest in the health of their staff can, under cer­tain con­di­ti­ons, save on tax and social secu­ri­ty con­tri­bu­ti­ons. The law allows an annu­al allo­wan­ce of 600 euros per employee for cer­tain pre­ven­ti­ve mea­su­res. Howe­ver, not every health ser­vice is cover­ed, and dra­wing the line bet­ween them can be quite tri­cky in practice.

Basic requirement: additionality

For a bene­fit to remain tax- and con­tri­bu­ti­on-free, it must, in accordance with Sec­tion 3(34) of the Inco­me Tax Act, be gran­ted in addi­ti­on to the regu­lar sala­ry. Defer­red com­pen­sa­ti­on – that is, the real­lo­ca­ti­on of an alre­a­dy agreed sala­ry to health bene­fits – is not per­mit­ted. The allo­wan­ce appli­es per calen­dar year and per employee. In the event of a chan­ge of employ­er or mul­ti­ple employ­ments, it may be clai­med sepa­ra­te­ly from each employ­er. If the amount is excee­ded, only the excess is sub­ject to tax and social secu­ri­ty contributions.

Which benefits are eligible?

The tax-free allo­wan­ce covers two main categories:

  • Cer­ti­fied pre­ven­ti­on cour­ses: Cour­ses that have been cer­ti­fied by the Cen­tral Pre­ven­ti­on Cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on Body or a sta­tu­to­ry health insu­rance fund. The cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on mark is award­ed for the are­as of phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty, nut­ri­ti­on, stress manage­ment and sub­s­tance use.
  • Work­place health pro­mo­ti­on wit­hout cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on: Beha­viou­ral mea­su­res that form part of a struc­tu­red work­place health pro­mo­ti­on pro­cess, such as stress manage­ment pro­gram­mes, breaks desi­gned to encou­ra­ge phy­si­cal acti­vi­ty, or nut­ri­ti­on-rela­ted courses.

Important: Tra­di­tio­nal gym mem­ber­ship or mas­sa­ge tre­at­ments are not eli­gi­ble for tax reli­ef. Even if an employ­er pays a con­tri­bu­ti­on towards a cer­ti­fied cour­se that an employee attends them­sel­ves, this may be included within the tax-free allo­wan­ce, pro­vi­ded that the cer­ti­fi­ca­te and pro­of of atten­dance are pro­per­ly documented.

BFH ruling: Accommodation and meals are not tax-exempt

The Fede­ral Fis­cal Court has cla­ri­fied an important rest­ric­tion. In its jud­ge­ment of 23 Novem­ber 2023 (case num­ber VI R 24/21), the court ruled that accom­mo­da­ti­on and meal cos­ts incur­red in con­nec­tion with a pre­ven­ta­ti­ve health cour­se do not qua­li­fy for tax exemp­ti­on. In the case in ques­ti­on, an employ­er had offe­red its employees mul­ti-day health retre­ats with hotel accom­mo­da­ti­on, com­pri­sing Nor­dic wal­king, back trai­ning and nut­ri­ti­on cour­ses. The tax office did not reco­g­ni­se the hotel cos­ts as tax-exempt, and the Fede­ral Fis­cal Court upheld this view. Accom­mo­da­ti­on and meals do not direct­ly impro­ve health and are the­r­e­fo­re not clas­si­fied as eli­gi­ble pre­ven­ta­ti­ve bene­fits. It is par­ti­cu­lar­ly important to note that, in the Fede­ral Fis­cal Court’s view, if orga­nisers invoice the total cos­ts for the cour­se, hotel and meals as a sin­gle lump sum, even an esti­ma­ted break­down is not permitted.

Documentation is crucial

Employ­ers would be well advi­sed to ensu­re that all rele­vant docu­ments are careful­ly filed with the pay­roll records. The­se include the cour­se cer­ti­fi­ca­te, the employee’s cer­ti­fi­ca­te of atten­dance, any appli­ca­ti­on for fun­ding whe­re appli­ca­ble, and, in the case of in-house cour­ses, a writ­ten state­ment from the cour­se lea­der out­lining the cour­se struc­tu­re and qualifications.

Anyo­ne wis­hing to imple­ment work­place health pro­mo­ti­on in a tax-opti­mi­sed man­ner should have the exact details review­ed in advan­ce. The distinc­tion bet­ween tax-pri­vi­le­ged and non-tax-pri­vi­le­ged bene­fits is very fine, and errors in imple­men­ta­ti­on can lead to unin­ten­ded addi­tio­nal pay­ments of pay­roll tax.

This artic­le was crea­ted with the help of AI and has been edi­to­ri­al­ly reviewed.

You might also be interested in this