Lower Saxony Fiscal Court confirms obligation to use the special electronic tax advisor mailbox (beSt) and the validity of the StBPPV
With its decisions of August 22, 2024 (Case Nos. 7 K 186/23 and 7 K 187/23), the Lower Saxony Fiscal Court (FinG Hannover) has set clear standards regarding the obligations for using the special electronic tax advisor mailbox (beSt) and the validity of the Tax Advisor Platform Regulation (StBPPV). The findings of the fiscal court are of considerable practical importance for professionals and their clients.
Background: Digitalization of legal transactions and tax advisory professions
The mandatory use of electronic means of communication in the professional practice of tax advisors has been significantly tightened in the course of ongoing digitalization of legal and administrative communications. In particular, the Law to Promote Electronic Legal Communications with the Courts and relevant regulations have established the mandatory use of secure electronic communication channels. The StBPPV explains and specifies these requirements for members of the tax advisory profession.
Significance of the beSt for professional practice
Among other things, the beSt is used for the secure exchange of documents and messages between tax advisors, courts, tax authorities, and other parties involved. The active obligation to use it requires tax advisors to communicate via this mailbox in both court and out-of-court proceedings.
Content of the decision and legal assessment
No doubts about the effectiveness of the StBPPV
The Lower Saxony Fiscal Court expressly emphasized that it saw no constitutional or administrative concerns regarding the StBPPV. The judges of the 7th Senate pointed out that the regulation issuer had observed the legal requirements of the Tax Advisory Act (§ 86d section 2 StBerG) with the StBPPV and that there was no apparent violation of superior law. In particular, the regulation meets the requirements for clarity and legal precision. Data protection requirements, such as those deriving from the GDPR, have also been taken into account and sufficiently implemented.
Binding legal nature of the active usage obligation
The court regards the obligation of professionals to actively and regularly use the beSt as lawful. This arises from § 52d FGO in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the StBPPV. The fiscal court rejects any suspension of the active usage obligation—such as by invoking technical, data protection, or organizational obstacles—unless specific and serious obstacles are demonstrated. General concerns, such as those raised by professional associations or arguments that implementation is organizationally challenging, are not sufficient.
Practical implications and ongoing proceedings
Within its rulings, the Lower Saxony Fiscal Court made clear that time-sensitive matters and other notifications not carried out via the beSt may, under certain circumstances, be considered as a formal defect. In individual cases, this can lead to the exclusion of legal remedies or the invalidity of procedural documents. According to the court, this strict application of the statutory provisions serves procedural certainty, legal clarity, and digitalization efficiency.
Professionals should therefore familiarize themselves with the technical and organizational requirements of the beSt and the StBPPV. In the cases decided, attempts to rely on a StBPPV that was allegedly not effectively enacted or to refer to overriding organizational doubts were unsuccessful.
The decisions of the Lower Saxony Fiscal Court are not yet final; appeals can be lodged against them. Higher courts, particularly the Federal Fiscal Court, will provide clarification regarding the interplay of legal certainty, digitalization obligations, and practicability. However, until a different decision is reached, the legal situation as adjudicated remains in effect.
Classification in a nationwide context
The legal situation assessed by the Lower Saxony Fiscal Court is in line with a nationwide trend towards full digitalization of professional regulations and specialized judicial communications. Comparable regulations exist for other professions—as in the legal sector with the special electronic attorney mailbox (beA). The nationwide tendency to consistently implement digital communication obligations without exceptions is reinforced by the decisions of FinG Hannover.
Practical relevance and further outlook
Especially companies, economically involved parties, and high-net-worth individuals who are clients of professionals should be aware of the significance of electronic communication and its legal requirements. Stringent implementation of technical standards and communication obligations is not only a professional responsibility but decisively affects the validity and persistence of tax and legal proceedings.
The recent decisions from Hannover make it clear that attempts to invoke invalidity, ambiguities, or organizational uncertainties have little prospect of success—as long as there are no substantiated explanations of specific obstacles.
Companies, parties involved, and advisory professions are therefore urged to adapt to the applicable technical and legal standards at an early stage in order to avoid procedural risks. Ongoing case law will continue to shape developments and, if necessary, provide further clarification.
For questions and further information regarding the assessment and development in the area of the special electronic tax advisor mailbox, the StBPPV, and the active usage obligation, the team at MTR Legal Rechtsanwalt is happy to assist.
