Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IX B 26/16 AI generated

Complaint against tax court suspension of enforcement inadmissible without express permission from lower court

Case Number IX B 26/16
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Inadmissible
Court Costs Borne by appellant
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Fiscal Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as inadmissible, ruling that the applicant did not prevail and must bear the costs of the appellate proceedings. The dispute concerned the admissibility of a complaint against a lower tax court’s order suspending the enforcement of a tax assessment. The lower court had issued the suspension order without expressly permitting a complaint to the appellate court. The decisive legal basis was § 128 Abs. 3 FGO, which establishes that a complaint against a lower tax court’s decision on the suspension of enforcement is only admissible if the lower court itself explicitly permits it in its order or in a subsequent decision. The court held that this statutory requirement cannot be bypassed by the appellate court, and that such a permit is mandatory even when the complaint alleges a procedural error, thereby preventing the appellate court from admitting its own jurisdiction.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO; Complaint against tax court suspension of enforcement inadmissible without express permission from lower court: The dispute concerned the admissibility of a complaint against a lower tax court’s order suspending the enforcement of a tax assessment. The lower court had issued the suspension order without expressly permitting a complaint to the appellate court. The decisive legal basis was § 128 Abs. 3 FGO, which establishes that a complaint against a lower tax court’s decision on the suspension of enforcement is only admissible if the lower court itself explicitly permits it in its order or in a subsequent decision. The court held that this statutory requirement cannot be bypassed by the appellate court, and that such a permit is mandatory even when the complaint alleges a procedural error, thereby preventing the appellate court from admitting its own jurisdiction.

Keywords

AI generated
enforcement of tax assessment procedural orders enforcement of ruling statutory basis suspension of tax recovery basis of tax assessment

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO
Basis for the order that the applicant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings.
AI generated
III B 81/14
Revocation of tax court complaint withdrawal and inadmissibility of appeal against suspension of enforcement refusal
IV S 11/10
Inadmissibility of repeated motion for suspension of tax assessment enforcement based on subsequent favorable lower court judgment
IX B 112/22
Unlawful referral of tax proceedings to administrative court: Inadmissibility of appeal absent express permission in the initial decision
III B 151/11
Inadmissibility of complaint challenging lower court’s failure to apply binding effect of prior administrative practice
I B 207/09
Inadmissibility of regular action challenging suspension of enforcement despite defective legal remedy instruction

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO

Basis for the order that the applicant bears the costs of the complaint proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Zulassung der Beschwerde gegen eine Entscheidung des FG über die Aussetzung der Vollziehung (AdV) nur durch das FG

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Auch bei der Rüge eines Verfahrensfehlers kann nur das FG, nicht der BFH, die Beschwerde gegen einen AdV-Beschluss zulassen .

[TENOR]

Die Beschwerde des Antragstellers gegen den Beschluss des Sächsischen Finanzgerichts vom 21. April 2015 4 V 890/14 wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Kosten des Beschwerdeverfahrens hat der Antragsteller zu tragen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde ist unzulässig und daher durch Beschluss zu verwerfen.

Gegen eine Entscheidung des Finanzgerichts (FG) über die Aussetzung der Vollziehung (AdV) ist eine Beschwerde nach § 128 Abs. 1 der Finanzgerichtsordnung (FGO) grundsätzlich nicht statthaft. Denn einem Beteiligten steht nach § 128 Abs. 3 FGO gegen eine Entscheidung des FG über eine AdV gemäß § 69 Abs. 3 FGO die Beschwerde zum Bundesfinanzhof nur dann zu, wenn sie entweder in der Entscheidung selbst oder in einem späteren Beschluss vom FG zugelassen worden ist. Dies gilt auch für einen Beschluss nach § 69 Abs. 6 FGO. Hier ist aber die Beschwerde vom FG nicht zugelassen worden.

Eine Zulassung der Beschwerde durch den Bundesfinanzhof (BFH) ist nicht möglich. Dies gilt auch dann, wenn mit der Beschwerde die Verletzung eines Verfahrensfehlers gerügt wird (vgl. BFH-Beschluss vom 17. Mai 1994 I B 234/93, BFH/NV 1995, 47; Gräber/Ratschow, Finanzgerichtsordnung, 8. Aufl., § 128 Rz 14).

Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf § 135 Abs. 2 FGO.