The Bundesfinanzhof (BFH, Federal Fiscal Court) has confirmed the tax classification of a pilot’s base airport as the primary place of work (BFH, judgment of September 9, 2026 – case no. VI R 4/25, ECLI:DE:BFH:2026:U.090926.VIR4.25.0). According to the judgment, an aircraft forms part of the airport’s large-scale fixed business facility for as long as it remains at its assigned parking position. Pre-flight work in the cockpit or on board must be taken into account when determining the primary place of work.
Distance allowance for journeys to the base airport
The claimant was employed as a pilot by an airline and had been assigned to Airport X under employment law since the beginning of 2014. In the year in dispute, 2018, he operated long-haul flights. Together with the other crew members, he was required to arrive at the airport one hour and 50 minutes before departure and check in electronically there.
According to the findings of the Finanzgericht Köln (FG Köln, Cologne Fiscal Court), the claimant travelled to the base airport almost exclusively by car during the year in dispute. He allowed between one and a half and two hours for the journey and also planned an additional buffer of one hour.
Activities before departure
The crew entered the airport area through a separate airline entrance with dedicated security checkpoints. The facilities available there included a cafeteria and a technical station. At this station, the crew could print flight documents and retrieve updates to flight data that had already been downloaded to their laptops at home. The claimant used this option for half of his flights.
Before proceeding to the aircraft, he met with the other crew members for a brief flight briefing lasting no more than five minutes. The crew then passed through security and proceeded to the aircraft, which they generally reached approximately one hour and 40 minutes before departure.
In the cockpit and on board, the claimant performed the following tasks in particular:
- He transferred the flight data stored on his laptop to the aircraft’s system.
- He organized and monitored the refuelling process.
- He carried out the mandatory safety and functional checks required before every departure to establish airworthiness.
- He reviewed error messages and, where necessary, arranged for the rectification of faults affecting airworthiness.
- He generally delegated the outside check to a co-pilot.
Dispute over the amount of income-related expenses
In their 2018 income tax return, the jointly assessed claimants claimed the travel costs between their home and the base airport as income-related expenses under the rules governing business travel. The Finanzamt (German tax office), by contrast, recognized these expenses only to the extent of the distance allowance.
The claimants’ administrative appeal was unsuccessful. The Finanzgericht Köln also dismissed the subsequent action and ordered the claimants to bear the costs of the proceedings (FG Köln, judgment of December 4, 2024 – case no. 12 K 1369/21). In their appeal on points of law, the claimants alleged a breach of substantive law and sought recognition of additional income-related expenses.
The BFH dismissed the appeal on points of law as unfounded. The claimants must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Requirements for a primary place of work
Under § 9(4), sentence 1 EStG (Einkommensteuergesetz, German Income Tax Act), the primary place of work is the fixed business facility of the employer, an affiliated company or a third party designated by the employer to which the employee is permanently assigned.
Travel costs incurred for professional purposes generally constitute employment-related expenses. However, if they relate to journeys between the employee’s home and primary place of work, they are covered by the distance allowance pursuant to § 9(1), sentence 3, no. 4 EStG. Under the version applicable to 2018, an amount of EUR 0.30 per full kilometre of one-way distance was generally deductible for each working day on which the primary place of work was attended.
Large-scale business facility
A fixed business facility may consist of physically grouped assets that serve the activities of the employer, an affiliated company or a specified third party. They must be permanently attached to the ground or intended for predominantly location-based use.
A primary place of work may also extend over a larger, spatially definable area. This requires the business facilities located there to be connected in organizational, technical or economic terms. Potential large-scale places of work therefore include factory premises, railway stations and airports.
Parked aircraft as part of the airport
In the BFH’s view, the fixed business facility constituting the “airport” comprises the entire spatially defined, infrastructurally developed, and organizationally and economically connected business premises. This also includes aircraft that remain at their assigned parking positions on the airport premises.
Due to its lack of a fixed location, an aircraft cannot in itself constitute a primary place of work. According to the judgment, however, this applies only once the aircraft has left its parking position. At that point, the aircraft enters flight operations, ceases to form part of the airport premises’ functional and attributional context, and becomes an independent mobile place of work.
By contrast, for as long as the aircraft remains at its parking position, it forms part of the airport’s large-scale fixed facility. Work performed in the cockpit or on board must therefore be included as activities carried out on the airport premises.
Work-related activity at the assigned location
A permanent assignment under employment law is not sufficient on its own to establish a primary place of work. The employee must perform at least a limited amount of contractual or official duties there that correspond to the employee’s occupational profile.
Permanent assignment to the airport
The claimant had been assigned to Airport X since 2014 and was therefore permanently assigned there during the year in dispute. This fact was undisputed between the parties.
According to the judgment, the large-scale primary place of work extended across the entire airport premises used by the airline for its flight operations. It therefore also encompassed the airline’s aircraft on which the claimant worked, provided that they remained at their parking positions.
Flight preparation as a sufficient activity
According to the binding findings of the Finanzgericht, the claimant already performed certain contractual duties of a pilot in the building areas attributable to the airline. The BFH left open whether, considered in isolation, these activities would have been sufficient in scope and significance to establish a primary place of work.
In any event, the decisive factor was the work performed by the claimant in the cockpit and on board the aircraft while they were still parked. In particular, the BFH considered the organization and monitoring of the refuelling process, as well as the extensive mandatory safety and functional checks, to be activities typical of the occupation and sufficient in both scope and quality.
The fact that this work was performed in an aircraft that was inherently mobile did not lead to a different assessment. The decisive factor was that the aircraft remained at its parking position during this work and was therefore still within the airport’s fixed business facility.
Distinction from other mobile work equipment
The BFH referred to its case law concerning paramedics. According to that case law, an ambulance station may constitute the primary place of work of an employee based there if the employee performs preparatory or follow-up work in the ambulance before and after assignments. The mobile ambulance also forms part of the primary place of work for as long as it remains in the ambulance station or on its premises.
The earlier judgment concerning the primary place of work of a refuse collector did not lead to a different conclusion either. Unlike in that case, the pilot did not perform merely minor activities at the base airport.
Consequences for tax treatment
In the year in dispute, the base airport was the claimant’s primary place of work within the meaning of § 9(4) EStG. His expenses for journeys between his home and the airport could therefore be recognized as income-related expenses only within the limits of the distance allowance. A deduction under the rules applicable to business travel was not available.
The judgment highlights the importance of the assignment under employment law and the duties typical of the occupation that are actually performed at the base location. For legal questions concerning the classification of a place of work and the resulting tax implications, MTR Legal advises companies and private individuals as part of its tax law advisory services.
