Tax secrecy
The tax secrecy is in § 30 Tax Code regulated basic principle of German tax law. It is a result of the general principle of official confidentiality (see official secrecy ) and can be traced back to the general right of personality .
It commands the tax authorities , insights they gain in the taxation procedure, not to third parties or only authorized retrieve in tax administration sphere stored data or to exploit. It obliges the public officials to maintain special secrecy about facts that have become known during the taxation procedure. There are exceptions (see below). In many cases, the tax authority is dependent on the cooperation of the taxpayer in clearing up significant facts.
meaning
Tax secrecy is legally anchored in Section 30 of the Tax Code and forms the procedural compensation for the extensive disclosure, information and cooperation obligations towards the tax authorities that have been imposed on the taxpayer and other parties involved . The purpose of tax secrecy is to ensure that the taxpayer's circumstances disclosed to the tax office in the taxation procedure are not passed on to third parties, which in principle also includes other bodies under public law that are not entrusted with tax administration tasks. It forms the procedural counterpart to the comprehensive cooperation obligations of the parties involved - in particular the taxpayer. In the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court , the purpose of tax secrecy is to promote the willingness to disclose tax matters through special protection of trust in official secrecy, in order to facilitate the tax procedure, to fully record the tax source and to ensure lawful, i.e. in particular uniform taxation.
Admissible disclosure
The transfer of knowledge gained is permitted if
- it is used to carry out taxation proceedings , judicial proceedings in tax matters, criminal tax proceedings or fine proceedings for a tax offense ( Section 30 (4) (1) of the Tax Code )
- it is expressly permitted by law ( Section 30, Paragraph 4, Item 2 of the Tax Code )
- the person concerned agrees ( § 30 Paragraph 4 Item 3 Tax Code )
- it is used to carry out non-tax criminal proceedings and special requirements are met ( Section 30 Paragraph 4 Item 4 Tax Code )
- there is an overriding public interest for them ( Section 30, Paragraph 4, Item 5 of the Tax Code ).
The permissions according to Section 30 (4) of the Tax Code deal only with the disclosure of facts determined in the taxation procedure; the right of exploitation is not addressed there. In accordance with the express statutory provision in Section 249, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 of the Tax Code, the tax authority may, for example, use data that is known to it and protected under Section 30 of the Fiscal Code and that it may use in enforcement for taxes and ancillary tax benefits, including in enforcement for cash benefits other than taxes and use tax fringe benefits.
Consequences of the injury
Tax secrecy is always violated when a public official reveals the circumstances of a taxpayer or another involved person to third parties without authorization. The same applies to third-party trade secrets that are exploited without authorization. In addition, tax secrecy is also violated by unauthorized access to data . The violation of tax secrecy is under threat of punishment ( § 355 StGB ). Accordingly, the violation can be punished with up to two years imprisonment or a fine . In addition, disciplinary consequences as well as civil law claims for damages are possible ( § 839 BGB , Art. 34 GG ).
Related topics
- Tax secrecy is a special form of data protection . The Federal Data Protection Act has been superseded by the tax code as far as its scope extends.
- In contrast to tax secrecy, banking secrecy is not regulated by law in Germany.
- Tax consultants , auditors and lawyers are not bound by tax secrecy, but by the obligation to maintain secrecy.
Individual evidence
- ^ Jehke, Christian and Haselmann, Jan, DStR 20/2015, pages 1036-1042, The protection of tax secrecy after a voluntary disclosure, p. 1037 there footnote 6, reference to BVerfG of July 17, 1984 - 2 BvE 11/83, 2 BvE 15/83, BVerfGE 67, 100, (139 f.) = NJW 1984, 2271, (2275)
- ↑ BVerfG, judgment of June 27, 1991 , Az. 2 BvR 1493/89, full text, BStBl. 1991 II pp. 654, 668., further reference NJW 1991, 2129-2133
- ↑ For a detailed catalog, see Dren in: Tipke / Kruse, AO / FGO, § 30 AO text number 57 (systematics), 74-107
- ↑ s. Beermann in Hübschmann / Hepp / Spitaler, 10th edition 1951, 231st delivery 02.2015, § 249, note 77 - 79