“## Starting point: Notification in objection proceedings and the role of the authorized representative\n\nIn tax objection proceedings, the proper notification of the objection decision is of central importance. It is decisive for whether, and from when, time limits for legal remedies begin to run. In practice, this raises in particular the question of to whom the tax authority may effectively serve documents when an authorization has previously been granted but was later revoked.\n\nIn a decision dated 15 May 2024 (case no. VI R 25/21), the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) addressed the effectiveness of notifying an objection decision to an authorized representative even though the power of attorney had previously been revoked. This presentation is based on the original report at https://urteile.news/BFH_VI-R-2521_Wirksame-Bekanntgabe-einer-Einspruchsentscheidung-an-einen-Bevollmaechtigten-trotz-Widerrufs-der-Vollmacht~N33981.\n\n## Facts: Revocation of the power of attorney and service on the former representative\n\n### Power of attorney granted in administrative proceedings\n\nThe starting point of the proceedings was that the taxpayer initially had himself represented in the objection proceedings and had granted a power of attorney for this purpose. The tax authority subsequently communicated via the designated representative.\n\n### Later revocation and subsequent notification\n\nIn the further course of events, the power of attorney was revoked. Nevertheless, the objection decision was notified not to the taxpayer himself but continued to be notified to the former authorized representative. This gave rise to the dispute as to whether the notification was legally effective despite the revocation.\n\n## Legal core of the decision: Relevance of the authority’s knowledge\n\n### Revocation as such is not sufficient without receipt by the tax authority\n\nUnder the constellation addressed by the BFH, the decisive factor for the effectiveness of the notification is whether the revocation of the authorization reached the tax authority in such a manner that it objectively removes any recognizable basis for the continued existence of the representative authority. The BFH thus focuses on the authority’s knowledge, or the attributable perception of the revocation, within the administrative proceedings.\n\n### Notification to the former authorized representative can remain effective\n\nThe decision makes clear that an objection decision can be effectively notified to the (former) authorized representative even if the revocation was declared, but the tax authority did not, at the relevant time, have knowledge of it in a relevant manner. What matters, therefore, is not merely the taxpayer’s internal change of will, but the termination of the authority to represent that has been effectively communicated externally to the authority.\n\n## Significance for time limits and the procedural situation\n\n### Commencement of the time limit through effective notification\n\nIf the notification is effective, it triggers the running of the time limit for legal remedies. A dispute over the effectiveness of service therefore directly concerns the question whether a subsequent legal remedy was lodged in time or must be treated as late.\n\n### Procedural certainty through clear allocation of the addressee for service\n\nThe decision underscores the importance of unambiguous service arrangements in objection proceedings. Where, based on the file situation, the authority may still assume that an authorization exists, this can result in effective notification to the previous representative.\n\n## Classification from the perspective of conducting the proceedings\n\nThe BFH’s decision (VI R 25/21) shows that the effectiveness of a notification in objection proceedings can depend substantially on formal and verifiable communication processes. Especially where service, time limits, and representation relationships become disputed, this can have significant effects on the procedural starting position. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte supports companies, investors, and high-net-worth private individuals in contentious disputes and in the judicial enforcement or defense of claims. Further information on support in the area of litigation can be found on MTR Legal’s website. “
