Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
X R 13/11 AI generated

Cost allocation following mutual declaration of mootness in revision under § 138 FGO

Case Number X R 13/11
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome struck_off
Court Costs Shared between parties
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Court of Finance (BFH), 10th Senate, ordered that the costs of the legal dispute be offset against each other, effectively resulting in no net cost recovery for either party regarding the plaintiff. The case involved a tax dispute in the revision procedure where the parties mutually declared the main subject matter moot, rendering the challenged lower court judgment and its associated cost decision void with respect to the plaintiff. Under § 138(1) of the Financial Courts Act (FGO), the court exercised its equitable discretion to follow the parties' unanimous proposal for cost allocation, as such an agreement does not contradict procedural law when the primary case is declared moot in the revision stage.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 138 Abs. 1 FGO; Cost allocation following mutual declaration of mootness in revision under § 138 FGO: The case involved a tax dispute in the revision procedure where the parties mutually declared the main subject matter moot, rendering the challenged lower court judgment and its associated cost decision void with respect to the plaintiff. Under § 138(1) of the Financial Courts Act (FGO), the court exercised its equitable discretion to follow the parties' unanimous proposal for cost allocation, as such an agreement does not contradict procedural law when the primary case is declared moot in the revision stage.

Keywords

AI generated
allocation of costs matter in dispute revision of a judgment procedural orders tax procedure party costs

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 138 Abs. 1 FGO
Procedural basis cited to determine that only costs remain to be decided after the main subject matter was declared moot and to serve as the ground for the final cost allocation.
AI generated
X R 12/11
Allocation of costs upon settlement of main case in revision proceedings 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
III R 26/13
Cost allocation in revision proceedings where mandate action becomes moot due to corrective administrative act and narrowed claim
VIII B 176/11
Cost allocation in mooted proceedings: exclusion of merits review under § 138 FGO and taxability of novation
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

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 138 Abs. 1 FGO

Procedural basis cited to determine that only costs remain to be decided after the main subject matter was declared moot and to serve as the ground for the final cost allocation.

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).