Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
9 B 22/17, 9 B 22/17 (9 C 1/18) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2018:160218B9B22.17.0 AI generated

Liability of vehicle owner for operator's entertainment tax debt and compatibility with constitutional equality principle

Case Number 9 B 22/17, 9 B 22/17 (9 C 1/18)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court granted leave to appeal, allowing the plaintiff's constitutional complaint against the denial of leave to appeal to succeed and ordering the case to proceed to revision. The dispute concerned whether a municipal entertainment tax ordinance violated the equal protection clause by establishing the liability of the owner of a slot machine (who rented the device to the operator) for the operator's entertainment tax debt. The court based its decision on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, finding that the case is of fundamental importance for the clarification of the compatibility of such ownership-based tax liability mechanisms with Article 3 Abs. 1 of the German Basic Law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG; Liability of vehicle owner for operator's entertainment tax debt and compatibility with constitutional equality principle: The dispute concerned whether a municipal entertainment tax ordinance violated the equal protection clause by establishing the liability of the owner of a slot machine (who rented the device to the operator) for the operator's entertainment tax debt. The court based its decision on § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, finding that the case is of fundamental importance for the clarification of the compatibility of such ownership-based tax liability mechanisms with Article 3 Abs. 1 of the German Basic Law.

Keywords

AI generated
tax liability entertainment tax constitutional equality municipal ordinance vehicle tax rights of the taxpayer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for granting leave to appeal due to the fundamental legal significance of the case.
Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG
Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob es mit Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG vereinbar ist, dass eine Vergnügungssteuersatzung die Haftung des Eigentümers eines Geldspielgerätes, der das Gerät an den Aufsteller vermietet, für die Vergnügungssteuerschuld des Aufstellers anordnet.
§ 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
9 C 1/18
Municipal liability of slot machine owner for entertainment tax: sufficiency of contractual proximity to tax-generating event under Art. 3 GG.
9 B 26/21
Liability of gaming machine manufacturers for entertainment tax: constitutional validity of owner liability norms and binding effect of prior revisions
1 BvR 3425/08
Taxability of slot machines via device count: constitutional prohibition of disproportionate count-based assessment under equal taxation principles
9 B 68/16
Amusement tax on gaming machines: interpretation of player expenditure and equality under Art. 3(1) GG
9 B 27/11
Gaming machine tax cap: Violation of constitutional equality by device-based lump-sum taxation and evidentiary standards for proving tax strangling effect

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for granting leave to appeal due to the fundamental legal significance of the case.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural basis for the provisional determination of the amount in dispute for the revision 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

Revisionszulassung; Haftung des Eigentümers eines Geldspielgerätes für die Vergnügungssteuerschuld des Aufstellers

[GRUENDE]

Die Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde der Klägerin ist begründet. Die Revision ist gemäß § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO wegen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung der Rechtssache zuzulassen. Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob es mit Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG vereinbar ist, dass eine Vergnügungssteuersatzung die Haftung des Eigentümers eines Geldspielgerätes, der das Gerät an den Aufsteller vermietet, für die Vergnügungssteuerschuld des Aufstellers anordnet.

Die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GKG.