-
@ Wahl
2023-09-15 15:40:21Uhh ...
Federal Finance Court (BFH), Germany, decision of July 25, 2023 - VIII B 27/22
A plaintiff wanted to appeal to the BFH. To do this, his lawyers had to get permission to appeal.
The second instance did not allow the appeal. So a non-admission complaint must be written and submitted to the BFH.
So far so good.
The lawyer who was first commissioned to give the reasons listed as a general reason for admission the entire catalog in accordance with Section 115 Paragraph 2 of the Financial Court Code (FGO). She wrote that her client thought that “the appeal should be allowed for these reasons.”
o.k. - It is not known exactly who terminated whom, but she did not pursue the attempted revision for this client and was out of the race.
The lawyer hired afterwards justified the appeal by expressly only quoting the client's statements. In order to eliminate any doubt that he, the lawyer, had not written it, he emphasized at the end of the written statement that it was "exclusively" a statement of reasons from the client.
Yes, let's not forget: the plaintiff first tried it without a lawyer. However, there is a requirement to have a lawyer before the BFH.
The BFH rejected the man's non-admission complaint as inadmissible due to a lack of justification. None of the written papers submitted were formally effective. According to Section 62 Paragraph 4 FGO, the taxpayer cannot represent himself before the BFH. The lawyers' justifications were neither written by them themselves nor have the lawyers made it clear that they want to take responsibility for these texts as their own text.
The lawyer's formulaic statement that there is "hardly anything to add" to the client's reasons (made so clear as a quote) is of course not sufficient.
To get something positive out of the matter from a lawyer's perspective: So when clients sometimes believe that they know everything better...
Be careful!