Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IX S 26/17 ECLI:DE:BFH:2018:B.090118.IXS26.17.0 Generato dall'IA

Inadmissibility of hearing motion due to mandatory representation requirement under FGO

Numero d'incarto IX S 26/17
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Finance Court (BFH) dismissed the taxpayer's motion for a hearing (Anhörungsrüge) as inadmissible and ordered the taxpayer to bear the costs, including a court fee of 60 euros. The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of a hearing motion filed against a BFH decision that dismissed a non-admission complaint. The court held that the mandatory representation requirement (Vertretungszwang) under § 62(4) of the Fiscal Courts Act (FGO), which applied to the underlying non-admission complaint decision, also extended to the subsequent filing of the hearing motion under § 133a FGO; because the taxpayer failed to be represented by a legal professional in the motion for a hearing, the procedural prerequisite was not met.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 62 Abs. 4 FGO, § 133a FGO, § 133a Abs. 4 Satz 4 FGO, § 135 Abs. 2 FGO; Inadmissibility of hearing motion due to mandatory representation requirement under FGO: The dispute concerned the procedural admissibility of a hearing motion filed against a BFH decision that dismissed a non-admission complaint. The court held that the mandatory representation requirement (Vertretungszwang) under § 62(4) of the Fiscal Courts Act (FGO), which applied to the underlying non-admission complaint decision, also extended to the subsequent filing of the hearing motion under § 133a FGO; because the taxpayer failed to be represented by a legal professional in the motion for a hearing, the procedural prerequisite was not met.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
patrocinio obbligatorio atto processuale decisione quadro obbligo di comparizione all'udienza domanda di ricusazione onorario

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 62 Abs. 4 FGO
Established the mandatory legal representation requirement that rendered the hearing motion inadmissible.
§ 133a FGO
Defined the procedural framework for the hearing motion that was subject to the representation requirement.
§ 133a Abs. 4 Satz 4 FGO
Authorized the court to omit further reasoning in the decision.
§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO
Basis for the decision on costs, ordering the petitioner to bear the procedural costs.

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
IX B 46/17
Tax litigation: right to be heard not violated where lower court reasonably rejects claim that seizure of documents prevented timely identification of legal violations
Generato dall'IA
IX S 5/12
Inadmissibility of hearing-rüg petition due to mandatory representation requirement in Federal Finance Court proceedings
IX R 10/11
Inadmissibility of motion to correct factual findings due to lack of mandatory legal representation before the Federal Finance Court
IX S 6/15
Admissibility of hearing complaint violating mandatory representation requirement when challenging lower court's refusal to recognize exception to representation rule
V S 31/10
Anhörungsrüge inadmissible without mandatory representation and expired deadline under § 133a FGO
II S 16/16
Mandatory representation extends to hearing complaints against decisions subject to the same requirement

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 62 Abs. 4 FGO

Established the mandatory legal representation requirement that rendered the hearing motion inadmissible.

§ 133a FGO

Defined the procedural framework for the hearing motion that was subject to the representation requirement.

§ 133a Abs. 4 Satz 4 FGO

Authorized the court to omit further reasoning in the decision.

§ 135 Abs. 2 FGO

Basis for the decision on costs, ordering the petitioner to bear the procedural 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

Vertretungszwang bei Anhörungsrüge

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Der Vertretungszwang für Verfahren vor dem BFH gilt auch für die Erhebung einer Anhörungsrüge, wenn für die beanstandete Entscheidung ihrerseits Vertretungszwang galt .

[TENOR]

Die Anhörungsrüge des Klägers gegen den Beschluss des Bundesfinanzhofs vom 4. September 2017 IX B 46/17 wird als unzulässig verworfen.

Die Kosten des Verfahrens hat der Kläger zu tragen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Anhörungsrüge ist unzulässig.

Der Vertretungszwang gemäß § 62 Abs. 4 der Finanzgerichtsordnung (FGO) für Verfahren vor dem Bundesfinanzhof (BFH) gilt auch für die Erhebung einer Anhörungsrüge (§ 133a FGO), wenn für die beanstandete Entscheidung ihrerseits Vertretungszwang galt (z.B. Senatsbeschlüsse vom 30. Mai 2012 IX S 5/12, BFH/NV 2012, 1473, und vom 11. März 2015 IX S 6/15, BFH/NV 2015, 850). Das ist hier der Fall. Der Kläger, Beschwerdeführer und Rügeführer, der sich mit seiner Anhörungsrüge gegen die Entscheidung des BFH über seine Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde vom 4. September 2017 IX B 46/17 (BFH/NV 2017, 1618) wendet, hat den Vertretungszwang im vorliegenden Verfahren nicht beachtet.

Von einer weiteren Begründung wird mit Blick auf § 133a Abs. 4 Satz 4 FGO abgesehen.

Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf § 135 Abs. 2 FGO. Für die Entscheidung über die Anhörungsrüge wird eine Gebühr in Höhe von 60 € erhoben (Nr. 6400 des Kostenverzeichnisses, Anlage 1 zu § 3 Abs. 2 des Gerichtskostengesetzes).