”
Subject matter of the proceedings and initial situation
\n\n
At the center of the decision of the Berlin-Brandenburg Fiscal Court of 19/06/2023 (file no. 4 V 4019/23) was an application for a stay of enforcement (AdV) in connection with a trade tax apportionment notice. The key issue in dispute was, in particular, whether the tax authority was permitted to make the grant of the AdV dependent on the provision of security, or whether, by way of exception, a security was to be ruled out.
\n\n
The AdV is an instrument of interim legal protection that can suspend the enforcement of an adverse administrative act until clarification in the main proceedings. In the tax context, the question of whether the suspension is granted with or without security is of considerable practical importance.
\n
Legal framework for the stay of enforcement
\n
AdV in tax proceedings
\n\n
The stay of enforcement generally requires that there are weighty reasons against the lawfulness of the contested notice, or that enforcement would result for the person concerned in an undue hardship not required by overriding public interests. The decision on the AdV is made in summary proceedings; a final clarification of the substantive-law issues is reserved to the main proceedings.
\n
Security as a rule and as an exception
\n\n
In principle, the tax authority may make the AdV conditional upon the provision of security. This is intended to take account of the public interest in safeguarding the tax claim when enforcement is provisionally suspended. At the same time, however, constellations are recognized in which security cannot be required or must be dispensed with—for example, if in the specific individual case it would be disproportionate or would not be compatible with the purpose of interim legal protection.
\n
Core issue of the order: exclusion of security
\n
Dispute over the permissibility of requiring security
\n\n
The subject of the court’s expedited proceedings was the situation in which a stay of enforcement of a trade tax apportionment notice was sought, while on the administration’s side the demand for security was at issue. Decisive was the classification of whether security was, in the specific proceedings, even to be considered as a permissible ancillary provision, and whether special reasons justified its exclusion.
\n
Balancing of interests in interim legal protection
\n\n
In the expedited proceedings, the Fiscal Court had to weigh the competing interests: on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in effective interim protection against enforcement measures, and on the other hand, the public sector’s interest in securing the claim. Within the scope of this balancing, the court addressed whether the requirements for an AdV without security were met and whether requiring security in connection with an apportionment notice could be regarded as appropriate.
\n
Significance of the decision in the context of apportionment notices
\n
Specific features of trade tax apportionment
\n\n
Trade tax apportionment concerns the allocation of the trade tax assessment amount among several municipalities. In this respect, apportionment notices have a procedural peculiarity, because they do not directly concern the tax assessment itself, but rather the distribution of the assessment amount. Against this background, in AdV proceedings the question regularly arises as to how the interest in security is to be assessed and how it relates to the provisional suspension of an apportionment notice.
\n
Practical relevance of the security issue
\n\n
The question of whether security may be required has significant consequences for those concerned, since providing security can often be associated with financial, organizational, or balance-sheet burdens. The order of the Fiscal Court makes clear that security must not be imposed schematically, but requires a case-specific justification and a proportionality review.
\n
Status of the proceedings and classification
\n\n
The order was issued in the context of expedited proceedings and does not constitute a final decision on the lawfulness of the underlying trade tax apportionment notice in the main proceedings. Decisive are the assessments made in the summary proceedings. The source of the facts and the decision as presented is the published reporting on the order of the Berlin-Brandenburg Fiscal Court of 19/06/2023 (file no. 4 V 4019/23), available at: https://urteile.news/FinG-Berlin-Brandenburg_4-V-401923_Ausschluss-der-Sicherheitsleistung-bei-der-Aussetzung-der-Vollziehung-eines-Gewerbesteuerzerlegungsbescheides~N32993.
\n
Procedural interfaces and further need for clarification
\n\n
Decisions on the suspension of enforcement regularly operate in a field of tension between effective legal protection and the fiscal interest in safeguarding claims. Especially in the case of assessment notices with distributive effect—such as in the area of allocating trade tax—the question of “whether” and “how” to provide security can be decisive. If, in this context, there is a need for clarification regarding procedural options, judicial standards, or the handling of ancillary provisions, support tailored to the litigation situation may be advisable. Information on legal assistance by MTR Legal in the area of Litigation can be found under the link provided.
“
