Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IX B 23/12 Generato dall'IA

Fundamental significance of home ownership subsidy disputes under repealed law and parallel interpretation of income tax norms

Numero d'incarto IX B 23/12
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Inammissibile (Inadmissible)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Federal Court of Finance dismissed the non-allowance appeal, leaving the lower court's refusal to grant admission of the complaint in place. The dispute concerned an application for admission based on alleged fundamental legal significance regarding the former Home Ownership Subsidy Act (Eigenheimzulagengesetz), which had been repealed by a 2005 legislative amendment. The court held that such subsidy cases possess fundamental significance only in exceptional circumstances because they involve expired law, and the appellant failed to substantiate that a clarification was necessary. The court further rejected the argument that parallel interpretive issues under § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 Satz 3 of the Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz) could confer fundamental significance, as these are distinct legal norms and the required parallel interpretation was not coherently demonstrated.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 FGO; Fundamental significance of home ownership subsidy disputes under repealed law and parallel interpretation of income tax norms: NV: Rechtssachen zur Eigenheimzulage haben nur noch ausnahmsweise grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 FGO) .

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
imposta sul reddito sovvenzione modifica legislativa interpretazione del diritto atto non legislativo equo canone

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 FGO
NV: Rechtssachen zur Eigenheimzulage haben nur noch ausnahmsweise grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 FGO) .
Generato dall'IA
IX B 37/10
Fundamental significance of Home Allowance cases after statutory repeal
IX B 121/10
Admissibility of revision against Home Subsidy claims: No fundamental significance for sunset legislation, no manifest illegality in factual assessments, and no surprise decision despite rejected settlement offer.
IX B 122/09
Homeownership Allowance: Non-admission for lack of fundamental significance due to repealed statute and failure to substantiate ongoing impact on broad group
IX B 97/11
Homeownership subsidy admissibility: Object consumption for divorced spouses and fundamental significance of lapsed law
IX B 185/11
Home ownership subsidy claims: Inadmissibility of cumulative judgment where procedural defects affect only one independent ground

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

Grundsätzliche Bedeutung einer das Eigenheimzulagenrecht betreffenden Rechtssache

[LEITSATZ]

NV: Rechtssachen zur Eigenheimzulage haben nur noch ausnahmsweise grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 FGO) .

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde hat keinen Erfolg.

Die Rechtssache ist nicht grundsätzlich bedeutsam (§ 115 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 der Finanzgerichtsordnung --FGO--), sondern betrifft mit der Eigenheimzulage ausgelaufenes Recht (§ 19 Abs. 9 des Eigenheimzulagengesetzes i.d.F. des Gesetzes zur Abschaffung der Eigenheimzulage vom 22. Dezember 2005, BGBl I 2005, 3680). Nur ausnahmsweise sind noch grundsätzliche, klärungsbedürftige Rechtsfragen zu entscheiden (Beschluss des Bundesfinanzhofs vom 21. September 2011 IX B 171/10, BFH/NV 2012, 12, m.w.N.). Dies ist nicht substantiiert vorgetragen und auch nicht ersichtlich.

Dass sich im Kontext von § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 1 Satz 3 des Einkommensteuergesetz u.U. vergleichbare Auslegungsfragen wie im Streitfall stellen könnten, führt nicht zu dessen grundsätzlicher Bedeutung, handelt es sich doch um durchaus unterschiedliche Rechtsnormen, deren notwendig parallele Auslegung nicht schlüssig dargelegt ist.