Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
X R 12/11 AI generated

Allocation of costs upon settlement of main case in revision proceedings under § 138 FGO

Case Number X R 12/11
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Court Costs No costs imposed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Court of Finance (BFH) ordered the mutual waiver of all litigation costs for the plaintiff, leaving the lower court judgment ineffective regarding the plaintiff due to the mootness of the main case. The dispute arose in tax litigation (Revision) where the parties unanimously declared the main subject matter settled before the appellate court, thereby rendering the contested judgment and its cost allocation obsolete. Relying on § 138 Abs. 1 FGO, the court applied the principle of equitable discretion (*billiges Ermessen*) to follow the parties' agreement on cost distribution, confirming that such agreements are binding unless they contravene procedural law.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 138 Abs. 1 FGO; Allocation of costs upon settlement of main case in revision proceedings under § 138 FGO: The dispute arose in tax litigation (Revision) where the parties unanimously declared the main subject matter settled before the appellate court, thereby rendering the contested judgment and its cost allocation obsolete. Relying on § 138 Abs. 1 FGO, the court applied the principle of equitable discretion (*billiges Ermessen*) to follow the parties' agreement on cost distribution, confirming that such agreements are binding unless they contravene procedural law.

Keywords

AI generated
allocation of costs tax litigation proceedings settlement of dispute revision of a judgment procedural orders party costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 138 Abs. 1 FGO
Cited as the legal basis for the decision regarding the costs of the proceedings after the main case was declared settled.
AI generated
III R 12/09
Settled revision proceedings: cost allocation by corresponding application of § 138 Abs. 2 FGO and survival of lower court judgment’s legal force for unsettled periods
X R 13/11
Cost allocation following mutual declaration of mootness in revision under § 138 FGO
III R 5/09
Proportional cost allocation in moot main proceedings following partial administrative abatement and rejection of minor-defeat cost shifting
IX R 7/23 (IX R 19/12), IX R 7/23, IX R 19/12
Splitting cost allocation by temporal segments despite the principle of unitary cost decisions after settlement of the main case in revision
X R 5/12
Cost allocation under § 138 FGO for extrajudicial resolution of tax disputes involving historic monument renovation deductions

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 138 Abs. 1 FGO

Cited as the legal basis for the decision regarding the costs of the proceedings after the main case was declared settled.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Kostenentscheidung nach Erledigung der Hauptsache im Revisionsverfahren

[GRUENDE]

1. Nachdem die Beteiligten die Hauptsache übereinstimmend für erledigt erklärt haben, hat der beschließende Senat nur noch über die Kosten des Rechtsstreits zu entscheiden (§ 138 Abs. 1 der Finanzgerichtsordnung --FGO--). Da die Erledigungserklärungen im Revisionsverfahren abgegeben wurden, ist das angefochtene Urteil einschließlich der darin enthaltenen Kostenentscheidung gegenstandslos geworden, soweit es die Klägerin und Revisionsklägerin (Klägerin) betrifft (Beschluss des Bundesfinanzhofs --BFH-- vom 29. Mai 1996 I R 79/95, BFH/NV 1996, 846).

2. Die Kostenentscheidung beruht auf § 138 Abs. 1 FGO. Es entspricht vorliegend gemäß dem übereinstimmenden Vorschlag der Beteiligten billigem Ermessen, die Kosten des gesamten Rechtsstreits gegeneinander aufzuheben, soweit dieser die Klägerin betrifft. Einer Einigung der Beteiligten über die Verteilung der Kosten des Verfahrens ist in aller Regel zu folgen, sofern diese --wie hier-- dem Verfahrensrecht nicht widerspricht (BFH-Beschluss vom 14. Februar 2006 V R 57/03, BFH/NV 2006, 1121).