Joint Practice Recognizing Freelance or Commercial Income

News  >  Joint Practice Recognizing Freelance or Commercial Income

Arbeitsrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Steuerrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Home-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte
Arbeitsrecht-Anwalt-Rechtsanwalt-Kanzlei-MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte

Group Practice – Freelance or Commercial Income?

BFH Judgment of February 4, 2025 (Ref. VIII R 4/22): Organization can still be “freelance”

In group practices, it is not uncommon for individual partners to predominantly take on management, organizational, or administrative tasks. This quickly raises the concern from a tax perspective that the practice could be classified as commercial – resulting in a commercial tax liability (“co-adventuring” for partnerships).

The Federal Finance Court (BFH) clarified with the judgment of February 4, 2025 (Ref. VIII R 4/22): Even a practice partner who is primarily active in organizational roles can be a co-entrepreneur of a freelance partnership – and the practice’s income can remain entirely freelance.


1. Background: Freelance Activity and Commercial Tax

Doctors and dentists generally earn income from self-employment according to § 18 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 EStG. This is not subject to commercial tax.

It becomes problematic for partnerships (e.g., GbR, partnership companies) when the tax authorities believe that not all co-entrepreneurs fulfil the characteristics of a freelance activity or the company also engages in commercial activities. In such scenarios, depending on the situation, there is a risk of commercial structuring/co-adventuring and thus a commercial tax liability.

Especially in larger practices, internal division of labor is common: While some partners primarily provide treatment, others secure processes, staff, quality, contracts, and communications with authorities.


2. The Case: Senior Partner with Focus on Organization Instead of “Chairside Treatment”

The decided case concerned a partnership of dentists. According to the partnership agreement, a senior partner was mainly responsible for the commercial management and organization entrusted with the operation of the practice, among others:

  • Personnel matters
  • Process and practice organization
  • Quality assurance
  • Handling of contractual or administrative law topics
  • Representation to authorities

The traditional patient treatment receded significantly. In the year in dispute, he conducted only five consultative consultations outside the practice rooms; a typical dental treatment on the treatment chair did not take place. His contribution to turnover was approximately 900 Euros..


3. View of the Tax Office and Financial Court: “Then it is commercial”

The Tax Office and in the lower court also the Financial Court of Rhineland-Palatinate held the view that the senior partner was no longer professionally self-employed due to his predominantly administrative activities. Consequence of this view: The income of the entire practice was commercial – with corresponding tax implications.


4. Decision of the BFH: Professional status despite administrative focus

The BFH overturned this view and decided in favor of the practice: The partnership generated income from self-employed work and no income from commercial business.

Core statements of the BFH

  • For professional status, it is not alone it depends on whether a partner regularly treats patients.
  • What is decisive is whether their activity is in apersonal, material, and functional connection with the practiced liberal profession.
  • Organizational/administrative activities can also be part of the freelance partnership,if they are clearly integrated into the professional service delivery and ensure or secure it in the market.
  • There areno rigid minimum extents of classical treatment activities that must be necessarily exceeded.

The BFH assessed the commercial and organizational management as a substantial contribution to ensuring that the dental services of the practice can be properly offered in the market. Thus, there is no “breach” with the professional image.


5. Legal Framework: § 18 EStG and Requirements for Partners

According to§ 18 Section 1 No. 1 EStG belonging to a catalog profession (e.g. dentist) alone is not automatically sufficient. In partnerships, it must rather bepositively established for each partner that they fulfill thecharacteristics of the liberal profession – especially theown active development of professional qualification..

However, the BFH clarifies: This active development can – depending on practice reality – also consist of aleading, contributing, organizational activity provided that it is:

  • technically and functionally oriented towards the professional services and
  • does not merely represent “non-practice related” commercial business activities.


6. Importance for Practice: More Flexibility, Lower Risk

The judgment is relevant for many group practices because it strengthens thedivision of labor organization: A partner can predominantly take over management tasks without automatically triggering trade tax liability for the entire partnership as a result.

However, it remains important: Whether income is freelance or commercial is always a case-by-case decision. Particularly mixed cases (e.g., additional commercial activities, involvement of external third parties, structural and contract design) should be carefully examined.


7. Note on Classification / Disclaimer (Abuse Warning)

This post serves general informational purposes and does not replace individual tax or legal advice in specific cases. A final assessment depends on the concrete corporate contractual design, the actual distribution of tasks, as well as other circumstances.


If you want, I can also adapt the article:

  • into an SEO-optimized online post (Meta Title/Description, subheadings, FAQs), or
  • include a neutral template section “What does this mean for our practice?” without promotional wording and without risky assurances.