GDPR disclosure to tax authorities – even with significant administrative burden
The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has addressed the scope of the right to information under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the relationship between taxpayers and tax administration. The issue was whether a tax authority can reject or limit a requested disclosure under Article 15 GDPR by stating that processing would cause an exceptionally high administrative burden. According to the BFH’s decision, the effort associated with compliance does not generally stand in the way of the right to information. Source: Juraforum, article “BFH: GDPR information right for taxpayers even with high administrative burden,” available at https://www.juraforum.de/news/bfh-dsgvo-auskunftsanspruch-fuer-steuerzahler-auch-bei-hohem-verwaltungsaufwand_262836.
Starting point: Information requests in the tax context
Article 15 GDPR as the basis for the right to information
Article 15 GDPR grants individuals the right to request from the controller whether personal data is being processed and, if so, to receive information about the scope and circumstances of this processing. In the context of tax administration, the tax authority is considered the controller insofar as it processes personal data.
Conflict point: Scope of the request and resource burden
In practice, information requests to tax authorities can be very broad and relate to a multitude of processes, document components, and IT systems. The decisive issue was whether such a request can be limited solely because of the associated organizational and personnel burden.
Key statements of the BFH decision
High administrative burden alone does not justify refusal
The BFH has made it clear that a significant processing effort alone is not sufficient to reject the right to information under Article 15 GDPR. The right is determined by Union law; national considerations of administrative practicality cannot easily override it.
The legally stipulated limitations of the GDPR claim are decisive
According to the decision, a restriction of the right to information does not come into consideration merely due to organizational difficulties, but only within the limitations provided by the GDPR itself. This directs the examination standard to the data protection requirements, not to a general feasibility assessment based on administrative resources.
Classification: Importance for individuals and authorities
Strengthening the transparency principle towards state entities
The decision clarifies that transparency rights under the GDPR should not be reduced to a mere “theoretical” legal position in the citizen-state relationship. The tax administration remains bound by the data protection rights of individuals as long as it processes personal data.
Practical relevance in the area of tax data processing
In tax procedures, extensive personal information is regularly processed. The judgment makes it clear that access to information about this processing cannot be denied simply because fulfilling it is laborious in individual cases.
Final note from MTR Legal
The decision underscores that the right to information under the GDPR remains an important issue even in the tax field, often involving boundary questions regarding scope, content, and legal limitations. If clarification is needed, a classification within the framework of professional guidance may be sensible; further information on legal advice on data protection can be found at MTR Legal Lawyers.
