Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
2 BvR 287/11 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2015:rk20150424.2bvr028711 KI-generiert

Constitutional admissibility of challenging basic tax exemption for religious corporations as a negative state benefit under Art. 140 GG

Geschäftsnummer 2 BvR 287/11
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Nichteintreten / Unzulässig (Inadmissible)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The German Federal Constitutional Court (Second Senate, First Chamber) refused to accept the constitutional complaint for decision, ruling it inadmissible because the petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirements for reasoning under § 23(1) Sentence 2 and § 92 BVerfGG; specifically, the complainant did not engage with the Federal Finance Court's legal view. The dispute concerned a challenge to the granting of a basic tax exemption under §§ 3(1) Sentence 1 No. 4 and 4 No. 1 GrStG to corporate religious communities, where the complainant argued against the application of the principle of prohibition of state benefits. The decisive legal basis involved Article 140 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 138(1) of the Weimar Constitution, under which the tax exemption was characterized as a "negative state benefit" permissible for public-law religious corporations. Consequently, the lower court's decision remains in force, and the constitutional complaint was rejected on procedural grounds without a substantive ruling on the merits.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Art 140 GG, § 92 BVerfGG, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG; Constitutional admissibility of challenging basic tax exemption for religious corporations as a negative state benefit under Art. 140 GG: The dispute concerned a challenge to the granting of a basic tax exemption under §§ 3(1) Sentence 1 No. 4 and 4 No. 1 GrStG to corporate religious communities, where the complainant argued against the application of the principle of prohibition of state benefits. The decisive legal basis involved Article 140 of the Basic Law in conjunction with Article 138(1) of the Weimar Constitution, under which the tax exemption was characterized as a "negative state benefit" permissible for public-law religious corporations. Consequently, the lower court's decision remains in force, and the constitutional complaint was rejected on procedural grounds without a substantive ruling on the merits.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Abgabenbefreiungen Verfassung gesetzliche Voraussetzungen Unternehmenssteuer öffentlich-rechtliche Körperschaft öffentliche Finanzen

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Art 140 GG
Nichtannahmebeschluss: Steuerbefreiung gem §§ 3 Abs 1 S 1 Nr 4, 4 Nr 1 GrStG als negative Staatsleistung iSd Art 140 GG, 138 WRV
§ 92 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the procedural basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible because it did not meet statutory requirements.
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG
Cited in the dispositive as the procedural basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning.

Zitierte Rechtsprechung

KI-generiert
BVerfGE 19, 1
KI-generiert
2 BvR 1282/11
State constitutional provision requiring parliamentary legislation for granting public-law corporation status to religious communities violates separation of powers
2 BvR 1049/25, 2 BvR 1070/25, 2 BvR 1082/25, 2 BvR 1288/25
Tax constitutional complaints rejected for insufficient substantiation of fundamental rights violation
1 BvR 570/12
Constitutional complaint against tax refusal based on conscientious objection
1 BvR 2118/10
Fictitious church tax deduction in unemployment benefit calculations and failure to engage with prior constitutional precedent
I B 146/11
Constitutional validity of deriving Evangelical church tax liability from baptism and residence despite subsequent church exit

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the procedural basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning.

§ 92 BVerfGG

Cited in the dispositive as the procedural basis for declaring the constitutional complaint inadmissible because it did not meet statutory requirements.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Nichtannahmebeschluss: Steuerbefreiung gem §§ 3 Abs 1 S 1 Nr 4, 4 Nr 1 GrStG als negative Staatsleistung iSd Art 140 GG, 138 WRV

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen. Sie ist unzulässig, weil ihre Begründung nicht den gesetzlichen Anforderungen (§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 2, § 92 BVerfGG) entspricht. Sie setzt sich insbesondere nicht mit der Auffassung des Bundesfinanzhofs auseinander, die Grundsteuerbefreiung stelle eine negative Staatsleistung im Sinne von Art. 140 GG in Verbindung mit Art. 138 Abs. 1 WRV zugunsten korporierter Religionsgesellschaften dar (vgl. BVerfGE 19, 1 ).

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.