Probleme beim Einloggen
Cary Langer-Donohoe Moving your career forward in English
I have been volunteering with the vdi - the association for German Engineers - for 18 months now, providing support for Engineers looking to move their career forward, and am thrilled that my article and an interview with me was published last month. What differences do you see in how job application are done in German and in English? Read my take in my article below and enjoy!
https://www.cldbusiness.com/business-coaching-training-native-english-hamburg/
Alexander Baron von Engelhardt Own Costs for Company Car in Income Tax Return
For simplicity sake, most employers apply the 1% flat rate for supplying a company car to the employee. It often happens that the costs disbursed by the employee are often neither covered nor considered. However, the employee is entitled to claim such costs in his personal income tax return. This article will briefly describe the latest case law from the Federal Fiscal Court.
Pursuant to BFH"s ruling case law, when employers supply their employee with a car that can also be used for private purposes, this is considered as income from gainful employment, pursuant to §19 EStG (BFH judgment of March 20, 2014, re VI R 35/12). The income in kind often raises costs for maintaining the car, e.g. gasoline, repairs, or rent for a garage. These costs are often neglected on the annual personal tax return. If the employer does not want to reimburse the costs, the employee can deduct them from his personal income. The question remains how this is to be done.
Case Law so far
If the value of private usage pursuant to §8 II 2 EStG i.c.w., §6 I no.4 cl. 2 EStG is determined with the 1% rule, until the car costs disbursed by the employee were taxwise irrelevant. In other words, they were neither a deduction nor income (BFH judgments of October 18, 2007, re VI R 96/04 and VI R 57/06).
Partial Change in Case Law
Although tax offices did not want to accept deductions when applying the 1% rule, BFH now decided differently (re judgement of November 30, 2016, re VI R 2/15). When the employee pays costs for the private use of the company car and / or for trips between home and work, these costs now reduce the payment in kind - the usage of the car. However, if these costs exceed the payment in kind, this will not result in negative income nor deductible expenses (BFH judgment of November 30, 2016, re VI R 49/14).
In open cases, the tax offices will accept this income reduction when you show a strong case. All items must be thoroughly explained and stand up to scrutiny.
Example:
Employer A gives his employee B a company car which B may also privately use. The list price at the time of bringing the car to the market is 40 k €. No other payment in kind regarding the car exists. The employment contract provides, the employee bears the costs for gasoline, maintenance, and repairs by himself. In the annual payslip, the payment in kind from the car has been computed as 12% of 40 k € = 4,800 €. The total gross income for 2017 was 64,800 €.
Corrections During Assessment
In the annual pay slip 2017, the payment in kind (company car) is included. B gets a document from his employer that the annual worth of private usage amounts to 4,800 €. Then the gross income ought to be "corrected“ which is easily done on a supplementary sheet for the tax return. You can find an example on my website:
Alexander Baron von Engelhardt EU States Responsible for Protection Against Deportation for Citizens of Other Member States
EU States Responsible for Protection Against Deportation for Citizens of Other Member States
An Italian complained to the ECJ that Germany incorrectly extradited him to the United States. The ECJ decided this case in its judgment of April 10, 2018 (re C-191/16). The question before the court was whether a Member State must provide citizens of other member states protection against extradition.
Germany Extradited an European Citizen
The Italian plaintiff was accused of having participated in agreements restraining trade in the sale of marine hoses. During a transit stop in Germany during his flight from Nigeria to Italy, he was arrested. In accordance with the Extradition Treaty, he extradited to the States. There he was sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine.
Italian Claims Damages for Illegal Extradition
The Italian claimed damages for this illegal extradition and when the German state denied his claim, he took it to court. The plaintiff was of the opinion that he is entitled to the constitutional ban (art. 16 II 1 GG) that all German citizens are entitled to. Since this did not happen, the German state violated European law and especially the general prohibition of discrimination. Since the LG Berlin saw the possibility of infringing on European law, and because no existing case law existed, it called the ECJ to decide this interim question.
ECJ finds European Law Applicable
The European Court of Justice held that European law is applicable when a European citizen refers to a treaty between the EU and USA when a European is arrested from another Member State in order to hand him over to a country requesting his extradition. The coincidence that the plaintiff was in transit in Germany is irrelevant.
Unequal Treatment of Citizen from another Member State permissible
The court further held that Germany may unequally treat a non-German European citizen under a constitutional provision and so permit extradition even though Germans are protected from being handed over. The precondition is, however, that this person’s home has been given the possibility to arrest its citizen via a European warrant of arrest and his home country has taken no action.
Freedom of Movement Limited by Desire to Punish
ECF points out that a Member State may preferentially treat its own citizens by banning their extradition. This evidently leads to disadvantageous treatment of a European however it can be justified by the state’s desire to prevent a delinquent of not being punished. The only exception can be that there is a less evasive action is possible. Such less evasive could be to deliver the delinquent to his home country if his country is competent to punish him.
In this case, Italy’s consulate did not issue a European warrant of arrest therefore Germany’s extradition is justified.
Gregor Schneider Informationsaustausch mitausreisender Partner
Hallo zusammen,
als Ergänzung der Plattformen für Expatriates, haben wir eine zusätzliche Plattform für deren Partner geschaffen, wo sich mitausreisende Partner, gelegentlich auch MAP genannt, austauschen und Informationen zu bevorstehenden Ausreisen sammeln oder Tipps einholen können. Solltet Ihr einen mitausreisenden Partner kennen, der daran Interesse habt, dann macht sie oder ihn bitte auf folgende Plattform aufmerksam, wo Austausch mit Gleichgesinnten ermöglicht wird:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/343688429452153/
Danke, viele Grüße
Gregor

Moderatoren

Infos zu den Moderatoren

Über die Gruppe "Expat Club"

  • Gegründet: 30.08.2007
  • Mitglieder: 652
  • Sichtbarkeit: offen
  • Beiträge: 326
  • Kommentare: 248