Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IX B 11/14 Generato dall'IA

Sufficiency of non-admission complaint requirements for revision admission under German Fiscal Courts Code

Numero d'incarto IX B 11/14
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Court of Finance (BFH) dismissed the non-admission complaint, ruling against the appellants and leaving the lower instance decision in force. The case involved a tax dispute where the appellants sought to admit a revision appeal by alleging fundamental legal significance and legal divergence, arguing that the lower court made errors in applying the law or in factual subsumption. The court held that the appeal failed because the appellants did not substantively formulate an abstract legal question, did not demonstrate a valid divergence by contrasting contradictory abstract legal principles, and merely alleged substantive material-legal errors or simple subsumption mistakes, which are insufficient grounds for admitting a revision under the applicable procedural standards. The decisive legal basis is Section 115(2) No. 1 and No. 2 of the Fiscal Courts Code (FGO) and Section 116(3) FGO, establishing that simple material-legal errors do not meet the threshold for the required revision admission grounds.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO, § 135 Abs. 2 FGO; Sufficiency of non-admission complaint requirements for revision admission under German Fiscal Courts Code: The case involved a tax dispute where the appellants sought to admit a revision appeal by alleging fundamental legal significance and legal divergence, arguing that the lower court made errors in applying the law or in factual subsumption. The court held that the appeal failed because the appellants did not substantively formulate an abstract legal question, did not demonstrate a valid divergence by contrasting contradictory abstract legal principles, and merely alleged substantive material-legal errors or simple subsumption mistakes, which are insufficient grounds for admitting a revision under the applicable procedural standards. The decisive legal basis is Section 115(2) No. 1 and No. 2 of the Fiscal Courts Code (FGO) and Section 116(3) FGO, establishing that simple material-legal errors do not meet the threshold for the required revision admission grounds.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto tributario motivi di revisione carenza dei requisiti materiali errore materiale procedura giudiziaria tributaria grave deficienza del procedimento all'estero

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO
Cited in the dispositive to justify the court's decision to omit a further detailed legal reasoning.
§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO
Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the decision on costs.
Generato dall'IA
IX B 86/17
Admissibility of non-admission complaint requiring specific factual substantiation of procedural defects in tax litigation
III S 9/12 (PKH)
Prozesskostenhilfe for Non-Admission Complaint: Sufficiency of Substantiation of Procedural Errors under § 115 Abs. 2 FGO
IX B 159/13
Non-admission of revision: Merits-based attacks and non-arbitrary legal errors do not satisfy the requirements of § 115 Abs. 2 FGO
I B 174/10
Admissibility of non-admission complaint: failure to substantiate divergence from case law and procedural right to be heard
IX B 19/13
Requirements for admitting a non-admission complaint where the tax court relied on cumulative justifications

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO

Cited in the dispositive to justify the court's decision to omit a further detailed legal reasoning.

§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO

Cited in the dispositive as the basis for the decision on costs.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde, grundsätzliche Bedeutung und Divergenz

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Mit der Rüge vermeintlich fehlerhafter Rechtsanwendung bzw. schlichter Subsumtionsfehler in der Entscheidung der Vorinstanz, d.h. mit der Rüge materiell-rechtlicher Fehler kann die Zulassung der Revision nicht erreicht werden .

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat keinen Erfolg. Es kann dahinstehen, ob den Klägern und Beschwerdeführern (Kläger) Wiedereinsetzung in die versäumte Frist zur Begründung der Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde (§ 116 Abs. 3, § 56 der Finanzgerichtsordnung --FGO--) zu gewähren ist. Denn jedenfalls ist die Beschwerde unbegründet. Die Voraussetzungen der geltend gemachten Revisionszulassungsgründe der grundsätzlichen Bedeutung (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 FGO) sowie der Divergenz (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 2. Alternative FGO) sind nicht schlüssig dargelegt. Zum einen stellen die Kläger schon keine von ihnen für grundsätzlich bedeutsam gehaltene abstrakte Rechtsfrage zur Entscheidung.

Die behauptete Divergenz ist nicht entsprechend den Anforderungen des § 116 Abs. 3 Satz 3 FGO durch das Gegenüberstellen einander widersprechender abstrakter Rechtssätze aus der Entscheidung der Vorinstanz einerseits und vorgeblicher Divergenzentscheidungen andererseits erkennbar gemacht worden. Auch haben die Kläger nicht substantiiert dargelegt, dass ein qualifizierter, zur Zulassung der Revision führender Rechtsanwendungsfehler vorliege. Die Kläger rügen vielmehr lediglich eine vermeintlich fehlerhafte Rechtsanwendung bzw. sachliche Subsumtionsfehler in der Entscheidung der Vorinstanz; mit der Rüge solcher materiell-rechtlicher Fehler kann die Zulassung der Revision aber nicht erreicht werden.

Von einer weiter gehenden Begründung wird gemäß § 116 Abs. 5 Satz 2 FGO abgesehen.

Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf § 135 Abs. 2 FGO.