Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
10 B 3/15, 10 B 3/15 (10 C 4/16) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2016:280716B10B3.15.0 AI generated

Conflict between statutory chamber fees for tax advisor opinions and the prohibition of additional court fees under mandatory evidence orders

Case Number 10 B 3/15, 10 B 3/15 (10 C 4/16)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the defendant's complaint and granted leave for appeal, holding that the case possesses fundamental legal significance (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO), thereby allowing the matter to proceed to the appellate stage. The dispute concerns whether fees imposed on a Chamber of Tax Advisors for issuing an expert opinion on the appropriateness of a tax advisor’s honorarium, pursuant to a mandatory court evidence order, conflict with the prohibition of additional court fees under § 413 ZPO in conjunction with § 1 JVEG. The decision hinges on the interpretation of the fee authorization in § 79 Abs. 2 StBerG and the scope of binding effect of procedural court orders under § 4 Abs. 1 JVEG, with the appellate jurisdictional value provisionally set under §§ 47 Abs. 1, 52 Abs. 1, and 63 Abs. 1 GKG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 413 ZPO, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 GKG, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Conflict between statutory chamber fees for tax advisor opinions and the prohibition of additional court fees under mandatory evidence orders: 2 Nr. 1 VwGO), thereby allowing the matter to proceed to the appellate stage. The dispute concerns whether fees imposed on a Chamber of Tax Advisors for issuing an expert opinion on the appropriateness of a tax advisor’s honorarium, pursuant to a mandatory court evidence order, conflict with the prohibition of additional court fees under § 413 ZPO in conjunction with § 1 JVEG. The decision hinges on the interpretation of the fee authorization in § 79 Abs. 2 StBerG and the scope of binding effect of procedural court orders under § 4 Abs. 1 JVEG, with the appellate jurisdictional value provisionally set under §§ 47 Abs. 1, 52 Abs. 1, and 63 Abs. 1 GKG.

Keywords

AI generated
legal opinion legal fees statutory grounds procedural orders value in dispute tax judicial authority

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, justifying the granting of leave for appeal due to the case's fundamental legal significance.
§ 413 ZPO
Die Beschwerdebegründung führt die sinngemäß aufgeworfene Rechtsfrage auf, ob § 413 ZPO i.V.m.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to set the provisional amount in dispute for the appellate proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to set the provisional amount in dispute for the appellate proceedings.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to set the provisional amount in dispute for the appellate proceedings.
AI generated
VI E 2/12
Constitutionality of mandatory court fees and their compatibility with the right to legal protection in tax litigation
IV R 13/12
Fee for binding tax advisory opinion: exclusion of indirect future tax relief from subject-matter value calculation
10 C 4/16
Exclusion of professional chamber fees for court-ordered expert opinions under exclusive JVEG jurisdiction
IX ZA 1/13
Validity of tax advisor fee agreements exceeding statutory fees and the requirement for written form
10 B 16/17
Exemption for tax advisor in concurrent management role: conflict of interest and limits of § 33 StBerG

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, justifying the granting of leave for appeal due to the case's fundamental legal significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to set the provisional amount in dispute for the appellate proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to set the provisional amount in dispute for the appellate proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to set the provisional amount in dispute for the appellate proceedings.

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

Revisionszulassung; Gebührenerhebung für Gutachten einer Steuerberaterkammer

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die von der Beklagten geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung zu (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Die Beschwerdebegründung führt die sinngemäß aufgeworfene Rechtsfrage auf, ob § 413 ZPO i.V.m. § 1 JVEG der Erhebung von Gebühren auf der Grundlage von § 79 Abs. 2 StBerG i.V.m. einer darauf gegründeten Gebührenordnung für Gutachten einer Steuerberaterkammer entgegenstehen, wenn die Kammer durch einen Beweisbeschluss eines Gerichts zur Gutachtenerstattung über die Angemessenheit von Honorarforderungen eines Steuerberaters verpflichtet worden ist.

Darüber hinaus kann in dem durchzuführenden Revisionsverfahren voraussichtlich die Reichweite der Ermächtigung des § 79 Abs. 2 StBerG und der Umfang der Bindungswirkung von Beschlüssen des Prozessgerichts nach § 4 Abs. 1 JVEG geklärt werden.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.