Child Benefit Evasion

(Hinterziehung von Kindergeld)

Tax evasion through unauthorized receipt of child benefits

Unauthorized receipt of child benefits is a frequent cause for tax and criminal tax law decisions by the courts. These cases are particularly frequent in practice, as child benefit is one of the most frequently granted subsidies by the state. In addition, after the initial positive decision by the responsible state agency without cause, there is usually no review of the requirement on the part of the office until the children reach the age of majority. This is because, in accordance with the first sentence of Section 68(I), the competent family benefits office must be notified immediately of any changes in circumstances that are relevant to the benefit or about which declarations have been made in connection with the benefit. Accordingly, the recipient of the child benefit is obliged to notify. This, of course, opens the door to abuse of this instrument - whether consciously or unconsciously.

According to Section 31 Sentence 3 EStG, child benefit is a tax refund. As such, unauthorized child benefits can also be the subject of tax evasion within the meaning of Section 370 AO. Paragraph I no. 2 of this section stipulates that anyone who, in breach of duty, keeps the tax authorities in ignorance of tax-relevant facts and thereby evades taxes or obtains unjustified tax advantages for himself or another person is liable to prosecution. The family benefits office responsible for child benefits is a tax authority within the meaning of Section 370 (1) No. 2 AO pursuant to Section 6 (2) No. 6 AO. The objective facts are therefore fulfilled.

However, the findings on the subjective elements of the offense, i.e. the intent to evade, without which a mere tax evasion is not punishable, are often incorrect. For this reason, the Kammergericht, for example, overturned a judgment of the Regional Court in a decision dated December 14, 2016, file number: (4) 121 Ss 175/16 (205/16). In its decision, the Kammergericht criticized the findings of intent by the Berlin Local Court as well as the Berlin Regional Court. The defendant had indeed omitted to inform the family insurance fund that her children no longer lived in her household, but with their father in Turkey. She had also been informed separately of her duty to report. For this reason, the family benefits office also demanded the return of the child benefits paid. However, the conviction under § 370 AO depended on the defendant's intent. The lower courts had concluded this without further ado from the circumstances. The Court of Appeal did not consider this to be sufficient. Because here it was just doubtful whether a conditional resolution or conscious negligence was present. Negligent commission was not ruled out and the intent was not already evident from the manner of commission, so that a significantly greater effort of substantiation would have been necessary. Therefore, the Court of Appeal referred the case back to another chamber of the Regional Court.

Please note

The presentations on our website can of course not replace legal advice in individual cases. Please contact us for help with your specific concern. We will be happy to assist you in word and deed!

Office Berlin

My Berlin location is at Meinekestraße 4, 10719 Berlin:

Office Hamburg

My Hamburg location is at Friesenweg 38, 22764 Hamburg:

Lawyer Torsten Hildebrandt

Meinekestraße 4
10719 Berlin
Tel.: 030 439 709 999

E-Mail:

Friesenweg 38
22763 Hamburg
Tel.: 040 696 387 050

Copyright 2024. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Settings saved
Datenschutzeinstellungen

Wir verwenden Cookies und ähnliche Technologien auf unserer Website und verarbeiten personenbezogene Daten von dir (z.B. IP-Adresse), um z.B. Inhalte und Anzeigen zu personalisieren, Medien von Drittanbietern einzubinden oder Zugriffe auf unsere Website zu analysieren. Die Datenverarbeitung kann auch erst in Folge gesetzter Cookies stattfinden. Wir teilen diese Daten mit Dritten, die wir in den Privatsphäre-Einstellungen benennen.

user_privacy_settings

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 30 Tage
Speicherort: Localstorage
Beschreibung: Speichert die Privacy Level Einstellungen aus dem Cookie Consent Tool "Privacy Manager".

user_privacy_settings_expires

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 30 Tage
Speicherort: Localstorage
Beschreibung: Speichert die Speicherdauer der Privacy Level Einstellungen aus dem Cookie Consent Tool "Privacy Manager".

ce_popup_isClosed

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 30 Tage
Speicherort: Localstorage
Beschreibung: Speichert, dass das Popup (Inhaltselement - Popup) durch einen Klick des Benutzers geschlossen wurde.

_ga_CVPSS72NLT

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 1 Jahr 1 Monat 4 Tage
Speicherort: Lokal
Beschreibung: Google Analytics: zum Speichern und Zählen der Seitenaufrufe

_gat_gtag_UA_35738911_1

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 10 Std.
Speicherort: Lokal
Beschreibung: Google Analytics: um eine eindeutige Benutzer-ID zu speichern

_ga

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 1 Jahr 1 Monat 4 Tage
Speicherort: Lokal
Beschreibung: Google Analytics: zum Speichern und Zählen der Seitenaufrufe

_gid

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 24 Std
Speicherort: Lokal
Beschreibung: Google Analytics: zum Speichern und Zählen der Seitenaufrufe

Eclipse.outdated-browser: "confirmed"

Domainname: .steuerstrafrecht-rechtsanwalt.de
Ablauf: 30 Tage
Speicherort: Localstorage
Beschreibung: Speichert den Zustand der Hinweisleiste "Outdated Browser".
You are using an outdated browser. The website may not be displayed correctly. Close