Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
2 BvR 2555/09 ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2010:rk20100908.2bvr255509 Generato dall'IA

Retrospective extension of the two-year speculative disposal period for real estate: compatibility with legitimate expectations

Numero d'incarto 2 BvR 2555/09
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Constitutional Court (Second Senate, First Chamber) dismissed the constitutional complaint as inadmissible and unfounded, thereby upholding the validity of the challenged tax provision and allowing the respondent's position to prevail. The dispute concerned a taxpayer’s challenge to the retrospective extension of the speculative disposal period (*Spekulationsfrist*) for real estate from two to ten years, arguing it violated the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations. The Court held that the extension, enacted under the Tax Relief Act 1999/2000/2002, is compatible with constitutional law because the legislative change was already in force when the previous two-year period had not yet expired for the specific property at issue. The decisive legal basis rests on the interpretation of § 23(1) Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Income Tax Act (*EStG*) in light of the doctrine of legitimate expectations (*Vertrauensschutz*), as previously established by the Second Senate in its decision dated July 7, 2010 (2 BvL 14/02, 2/04, 13/05).

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 EStG, § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG; Retrospective extension of the two-year speculative disposal period for real estate: compatibility with legitimate expectations: The dispute concerned a taxpayer’s challenge to the retrospective extension of the speculative disposal period (*Spekulationsfrist*) for real estate from two to ten years, arguing it violated the constitutional principle of legitimate expectations. The Court held that the extension, enacted under the Tax Relief Act 1999/2000/2002, is compatible with constitutional law because the legislative change was already in force when the previous two-year period had not yet expired for the specific property at issue. The decisive legal basis rests on the interpretation of § 23(1) Sentence 1 No. 1 of the Income Tax Act (*EStG*) in light of the doctrine of legitimate expectations (*Vertrauensschutz*), as previously established by the Second Senate in its decision dated July 7, 2010 (2 BvL 14/02, 2/04, 13/05).

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
beni immobili imposta reale interpretazione della sentenza disposizione della legge sull'imposta sul reddito dottrina giuridica detrazione fiscale

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG

Procedural provision cited in the dispositive to justify the waiver of a detailed written reasoning for the dismissal.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Nichtannahmebeschluss ohne Begründung

[TENOR]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde wird nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen.

[GRUENDE]

Die Verfassungsbeschwerde ist ungeachtet etwaiger Bedenken gegen die Zulässigkeit jedenfalls unbegründet. Wie der Zweite Senat des Bundesverfassungsgerichts mit Beschluss vom 7. Juli 2010 - 2 BvL 14/02, 2/04, 13/05 - entschieden hat, ist es mit den verfassungsrechtlichen Grundsätzen des Vertrauensschutzes vereinbar, dass die Verlängerung der Veräußerungsfrist in § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 EStG von zwei Jahren auf zehn Jahre durch das Steuerentlastungsgesetz 1999/2000/2002 vom 24. März 1999 (BGBl I S. 402) auch für bereits erworbene Grundstücke bzw. grundstücksgleiche Rechte gilt, soweit im Zeitpunkt der Verkündung der Rechtsänderung am 31. März 1999 die bis dahin geltende zweijährige Veräußerungsfrist - wie im vorliegenden Fall - noch nicht abgelaufen war (vgl. C. II. 2. a>, Umdruck S. 19).

Von einer weiteren Begründung wird gemäß § 93d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG abgesehen.

Diese Entscheidung ist unanfechtbar.