What are moving costs

Moving costs

Table of Contents

1 Overview of the income tax treatment
2 Professionally induced moving costs
3 Unsuccessful advertising expenses
4 Overview of the VAT treatment
5 Company-induced moving costs
6 Business expenses or advertising expenses and input tax deduction
6.1 General overview of moving costs
6.2 Transportation expenses
6.3 Travel expenses
6.4 Rent compensation
6.5 Other expenses
6.5.1 Brokerage Fees
6.5.2 Additional tuition costs for the children
6.5.3 Expenses for a cooking stove
6.6 Flat rate payments for other moving expenses according to § 10 BUKG
6.6.1 Flat rate payments until May 31, 2020
6.6.1.1 Flat rate remuneration for married couples
6.6.1.2 Flat rate remuneration for single people
6.6.1.3 Increase in the flat fee
6.6.2 Lump sums from 1.6.2020
6.6.3 Proof of other moving expenses
7 No eligible business expenses or operating expenses
8 Employer reimbursements
9 Bibliography

1. Overview of the income tax treatment

Expenses incurred as a result of private change of residence are generally non-deductible costs of living according to Section 12 No. 1 EStG. However, if the move is due to business or professional reasons, the corresponding expenses can be → operating expenses in accordance with Section 4 (4) of the Income Tax Act or → business expenses in accordance with Section 9 (1) sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act. In certain cases, moving costs can also lead to extraordinary burdens within the meaning of Section 33 EStG (→ Extraordinary burdens). This is the case if the only reason for the move is the illness of the Stpfl. or a close relative living in the home.

Expenses for a privately arranged move can be taken into account as household-related services in accordance with Section 35a, Paragraph 2 of the Income Tax Act (BMF of November 9, 2016, BStBl I 2016, 1213, Rz. 3 as well as Annex 1 of the BMF letter of November 9, 2016; → Household-related services ).

2. Professionally induced moving costs

Costs that an ArbN incurs as a result of a job-related change of residence are advertising costs. Moving costs of an ArbN are then deductible as advertising expenses if it is certain that the move was almost exclusively professional and private reasons played no or only a subordinate role. A professional reason is given, in particular, if the move takes place on the occasion of starting a professional activity for the first time or is the result of a change of job and the time span for daily trips between home and first place of work is significantly reduced (BFH judgment of October 15, 1976, VI R 162/74, BStBl II 1977, 117). Under this condition, a move can also be professionally initiated without changing jobs (see also FG Lower Saxony judgment of August 28, 2013, 4 K 44/13, EFG 2013, 1994, LEXinform 5015727; comment of January 2, 2014, LEXinform 0944448).

A change of residence is caused by work (H 9.9 [professional initiation] LStH),

  1. if it significantly shortens the distance between home and place of work (H 9.9 [Considerable reduction in travel time] LStH). If the move is because of a Travel time reduction of at least one hour is professional, the deduction of income-related expenses does not fail because the move is also due to an expected child and the associated larger space requirement (BFH judgment of 23.3.2001, VI R 189/97, BStBl II 2002, 56). If the one-hour time saving is achieved, all private circumstances that otherwise accompany a move take a back seat and can be neglected (BFH of October 16, 1992, VI R 132/88, BStBl II 1993, 610; of July 27, 1995, VI R 17 / 95, BStBl II 1995, 728; from May 24, 2000, VI R 147/99, BStBl II 2000, 476; from February 21, 2006, IX R 79/01, BStBl II 2006, 598, BFH from October 15, 2012, VI B 22/12, BFH / NV 2013, 198 and BFH of 7.5.2015, VI R 73/13, LEXinform 0934449). In the calculation the Savings are the times for that Round trip to be included (BFH of October 15, 1976, VI R 162/74, BStBl II 1977, 117). If the ArbN has to travel between home and work several times on the same day, e.g. to be available for meetings in the evening, these journeys must also be taken into account when calculating the savings (BFH of 10.9.1982, VI R 95/81 , Federal Tax Gazette II 1983, 16).

    According to the case law, in exceptional cases "the accessibility of the workplace without means of transport" can lead to a significant other improvement in working conditions that even a time saving of less than an hour is sufficient for the assumption of a professional reason for the moving costs (BFH of 2.2.2000, XB 80/99, BFH / NV 2000, 945, LEXinform 0590416; see also FG Rhineland-Palatinate from June 21, 1995, 1 K 2702/92, EFG 1995, 1048, LEXinform 0127249, rkr. And FG Cologne from February 24, 2016, 3 K 3502/13, EFG 2016, 991, LEXinform 5018997, rkr.).

    If the move takes place on the occasion of the marriage from separate places of residence to a common family home, the professional reason for the move of each spouse must be examined separately. If the ArbN saves at least one hour of travel time per working day during a move, the fact that the move is related to a marriage-related establishment of a common household is no longer relevant (BFH judgment of March 23, 2001, VI R 175 / 99, BStBl II 2001, 585).

    When defining whether moving costs of a married ArbN are expenses for lifestyle or therefore almost exclusively due to work, because the travel times between home and workplace are regularly shortened by a total of at least one hour each working day, the changes in travel times of the spouses are not to be offset (BFH judgment of February 21, 2006, IX R 79/01, BFH / NV 2006, 1086).

    According to the BFH ruling of November 22, 1991 (VI R 77/89, BStBl II 1992, 494), however, another prerequisite for the assumption that the relocation costs are almost exclusively professional is that the driving time remaining after the move is to be regarded as normal during commuter traffic corresponds to. This cannot be assumed if the new apartment is 255 km from the location of the Stpfl. away. Is the Stpfl. comparatively seldom at work, the weighting of the shortening of the travel time between home and work associated with the move is significantly reduced when weighing up the professional and private reasons for the move. Accordingly, in such cases it cannot simply be assumed that the time saved by the move is the decisive factor for the choice of place of residence. If the professional cause of the expenses cannot be determined, doubts are to be borne by the Stpfl. (BFH judgment of 7.5.2015, VI R 73/13, LEXinform 0934449). In the case of judgment, the Stpfl. the distance between the place of use and the place of residence due to the move from 455 km to 255 km;

  2. if it is carried out in the overwhelming operational interest of the ArbG. According to the rkr. Judgment of the FG Baden-Württemberg of July 29, 2014 (6 K 767/14, EFG 2014, 1958, LEXinform 5016954), relocation costs are not deductible as income from non-self-employed work, if the move to a larger apartment enables a locked office to be set up, but the travel time to the workplace is extended, the employment relationship does not require a home office to be set up and the ArbG does not contribute to the relocation costs;

  3. if it concerns moving into or giving up the second home in the event of a job that is double housekeeping (→ double housekeeping).

If spouses who have previously worked in the same place move their place of residence because they - privately motivated - have built their own home in one of the spouses' hometowns, the spouse who takes a job at the new place of residence as a result of the change of residence can pay the relocation costs Just as little as the other spouse - who is still working at his previous job - claim his expenses on the occasion of double housekeeping (BFH judgment of February 21, 2006, IX R 108/00, BFH / NV 2006, 1273).

3. Unsuccessful advertising expenses

If the ArbG reverses a planned transfer, the futile expenses incurred by the ArbN due to the abandonment of its intention to move are deductible as business expenses (BFH judgment of May 24, 2000, VI R 17/96, BStBl II 2000, 584).

4. Overview of the VAT treatment

Moving costs are expenses that arise from moving the apartment. They are regularly non-deductible costs of private life (§ 12 No. 1 EStG). In these cases, the relocation services are not related to sales tax for the company; the input tax is therefore not deductible according to § 15 para. 1 no. 1 UStG (→ input tax deduction). However, if the move is operational or professional, the expenses caused by the move are business expenses. Insofar as the entrepreneur purchases a delivery or other service for his company, he is entitled to input tax deduction under the general requirements of § 15 UStG. This also applies to ArbN's professional relocation costs. However, the ArbG must be the recipient of services and invoices. There is no input tax deduction if invoices are made out in the name of the ArbN.

5. Company-induced moving costs

If an ArbN gives up his dependent activity in order to take up a similar freelance activity in another location, the costs of relocating his family home to the other location (moving costs) are usually business expenses (BFH judgment of 1.3.1972, IV R 166 / 69, BStBl II 1972, 458).

The recognition of moving costs as business expenses or business expenses cannot be made dependent on whether the taxpayer significantly changed his professional activity and thus his position in life. The only decisive factor is that the change in activity was the sole cause of the move (BFH judgment of October 18, 1974, VI ​​R 72/72, BStBl II 1975, 327).

The moving costs of a practicing doctor can be operational if this facilitates the care of inpatients admitted to the hospital (BFH judgment of April 28, 1988, IV R 42/86, BStBl II 1988, 777).

In any case, a move is to be regarded as professional / operational if the move reduces the total travel time between home and company by a total of 1 hour and thus for the Stpfl. such a daily travel time remains as it is regarded as normal in rush hour traffic. The private motives for choosing the apartment then do not conflict with the deduction of the moving costs as business expenses / business expenses (BFH judgment of November 22, 1991, VI R 77/89, BStBl II 1992, 494; see BFH judgment of March 23, 2001, VI R 189/97, BFH / NV 2011, 1380). If the professional reason for moving is established due to a reduction in travel time of at least one hour, private accompanying circumstances - such as marriage and increased housing needs due to the birth of a child - regularly take a back seat (BFH judgment of 23.3.2001, VI R 189/97, BStBl II 2002, 56). See also H 9.9 [considerable reduction in travel time] LStH.

6. Business expenses or advertising expenses and input tax deduction

6.1. General overview of the moving costs

If the move is operational / professional, the relocation costs represent business expenses in accordance with Section 4 (4) of the Income Tax Act or advertising costs in accordance with Section 9 (1) sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act. The income-related cost principles of R 9.9 (2) LStR apply (see also Schmidt / Heinicke , EStG, § 4 margin no. 520, 36th A. 2017). Such a professional reason exists in particular if the move takes place on the occasion of starting a professional activity for the first time or is the result of a change of job. In the event that an ArbN returns to Germany after several years abroad in order to resume his professional activity, this applies regardless of whether he was gainfully employed during his stay abroad (Lower Saxony FG judgment of April 30, 2012, 4 K 6/12, EFG 2012, 1634, LEXinform 5013778, rkr .; see note from August 9, 2012, LEXinform 0941911).

The moving costs can be deducted up to the amount of business expenses or business expenses that can be paid as moving remuneration (§ 5 BUKG) according to the Federal Moving Costs Act (BUKG of 11.12.1990, BGBl I 1990, 2682) (R 9.9, Paragraph 2) LStR, H 9.9 [amount of moving costs] LStH). If the limits stipulated by moving costs are adhered to, it is not necessary to check whether the moving costs represent advertising costs. If higher moving costs are proven in detail, it must be checked as a whole whether and to what extent the expenses are business expenses or non-deductible costs of living (R 9.9 para. 2 sentences 2 and 3 LStR and BFH judgment of December 17, 2002, VI R 188/98, BStBl II 2003, 314). The limits set by the law on moving costs do not exclude the deduction of additional business expenses. Refunds under the BUKG are an indication of deductible moving costs, but the tax deductibility is based solely on the general definition of income-related expenses in Section 9 (1) sentence 1 EStG.

In its judgment of July 13, 2011 (VI R 2/11, BStBl II 2012, 104), the BFH decided that expenses for a second apartment that arise due to a professional move can be unlimited deductible income-related expenses.

In the case decided by the BFH, the plaintiff spouses lived together in city X. Because the husband changed jobs, they rented a 165 square meter apartment in city Y on December 1st, 2007. From that day on, the husband went about his new job from the apartment in Y. As planned from the beginning, the wife and child moved into the new apartment in February 08. The husband claimed the rent for the apartment in Y in January and February 08 in full as income-related expenses. The FA recognized - with reference to double housekeeping - only pro rata costs for 60 square meters of living space (→ double housekeeping).

The BFH has decided that these rental expenses can only be deducted proportionally, for the previous apartment from the day of the move (the family) and for the new family apartment up to the day of the move (the family) as income-related expenses. Because expenses for the maintenance of an apartment, which is the focus of the lifestyle of a Stpfl. and his family - here the apartment in X until the family reunites, then the apartment in Y - belong to the non-deductible living expenses. In addition, the deduction of income-related expenses for double rent payments made due to relocation is limited to the regular notice period of the previous tenancy. Because only as long as the effort for two apartments is based on the intended family move.

With regard to the competitive relationship of Section 9 Paragraph 1 Clause 3 No. 5 and Section 9 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 EStG, the BFH states that the special norm of No. 5 does not supersede the general deduction of income-related expenses in Paragraph 1 Clause 1 EStG. There is a competitive relationship insofar as the apartment was used before the family move as part of a double housekeeping. The maintenance of two apartments serves here - in contrast to the double housekeeping - solely for the purpose of family reunification. Therefore, the rental expenses during the relocation phase are not covered by the special regulation of Section 9 Paragraph 1 Clause 3 No. 5 EStG, but are deductible according to Section 9 Paragraph 1 Clause 1 EStG (BFH of July 13, 2011, VI R 2/11, BStBl II 2012, 104, margin no. 13 and 14).

According to Section 5 (1) BUKG, the relocation allowance includes the following expenses:

Fig .: Overview of the relocation allowance

The Foreign Moving Costs Ordinance of 1.1.2019 applies to international removals (Federal Law Gazette I 2018, 891, see also LEXinform 9125186).

6.2. Transportation expenses

Transport expenses according to § 6 BUKG are the necessary expenses for the transport of the removal goods from the previous to the new apartment. For the definition of removal goods, see Section 6 (3) BUKG.

Under the general requirements of Section 15 (1) No. 1 UStG, the entrepreneur is entitled to deduct input tax.

6.3. Traveling expenses

Travel expenses according to § 7 BUKG are to be granted

  • to search for and inspect the new apartment. Either two trips by one person or one trip by two people are deductible. Travel costs can be deducted up to the amount of the cheapest ticket in the generally lowest class of a regular means of transport. As in the case of business trips, food and accommodation costs are reimbursed for a maximum of two days of travel and two days of stay (R 9.9 para. 2 LStR);

  • to prepare the move in the previous apartment, if the Stpfl. has been at the new place of residence for a long time. For the recognition of expenses see above;

  • for the moving trip. Travel and subsistence costs are reimbursed as for business trips.Accommodation costs are only granted for the day the removal goods are unloaded if an overnight stay outside the new apartment was necessary.

As with moving costs, the regulations in the LStR regarding the deduction of business expenses must also be applied accordingly to travel expenses (R 4.12, Paragraph 2 EStR).

The general principles of Section 15 (1) No. 1 UStG apply to the input tax deduction from travel expenses.

6.4. Rent compensation

Rent compensation according to § 8 BUKG is to be granted:

  • for the old apartment up to the earliest point in time at which the tenancy could be terminated, but for a maximum of six months;

  • for the new apartment, for the time during which the apartment could not be used, for a maximum of three months.

An input tax deduction from the tax-free rental expenses that are deductible as business expenses according to § 4 No. 12 letter a UStG is not possible, as the landlord cannot waive the tax exemption according to § 9 UStG and is therefore not allowed to show VAT separately in the invoice.

The deduction of income-related expenses assumes that expenses are charged. This is not the case with a loss of rent determined on the basis of Section 8 (3) BUKG. As lost income, it does not meet the definition of expenditure (BFH judgment of April 19, 2012, VI R 25/10, BStBl II 2013, 699).

Facts and reasons for the decision:

The dependent husband was transferred from A to B. The couple then moved to B. In the income tax declaration, the husband made, among other things, rent compensation in the amount of 11,650 € as income-related expenses for the single-family house that was unused after the move. He explained that the house had been vacant since the move and, despite great efforts, could not be sold.

The BFH has confirmed the opinion of the FA and the FG that the disputed rent compensation should not be taken into account as income-related expenses.

In the case of a professional move, the general principles for the deduction of business expenses apply with regard to the deductible costs. The expenses that are reimbursable under public law on moving costs are not, however, readily deductible within the framework of Section 9 (1) sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act. Insofar as the tax authorities refer to the provisions of the BUKG (see R 9.9, Paragraph 2 LStR), this finds its limit where the regulations are not compatible with the general definition of income-related expenses.

The plaintiff's move was due to work, but the deduction of income-related expenses requires expenses. Lost income, which is at stake here, as well as the waiver of income, do not meet the definition of expenditure (see also note from 23.8.2012, LEXinform 0941927).

6.5. Other expenses

6.5.1. Brokerage fees

The relocation costs that can be deducted as business expenses / business expenses also include brokerage costs incurred in connection with renting an appropriate apartment at the new place of residence (Section 9 (1) BUKG; administrative instruction confirmed by case law in Section 9.9 (2) sentence 1 LStR; see e.g. BFH judgment of November 15, 1991, VI R 36/89, BStBl II 1992, 492). On the other hand, brokerage costs are to be assessed differently, which are incurred in the event of an operational move for the acquisition of a house or a condominium used by the owner. These expenses as well as land registry and notary fees, real estate transfer tax and other ancillary costs are part of the acquisition costs of the property. They are not to be taken into account as business expenses, even if they would not have been incurred without the job-related change of residence. This is because the acquisition costs of an asset that is used exclusively for private purposes fall into the non-taxable area and therefore cannot affect the determination of income. The brokerage fee paid is also not deductible in the amount of fictitious expenses for the mediation of an equivalent rental apartment as business expenses (BFH judgment of May 24, 2000, VI R 188/97, BStBl II 2000, 586, H 9.9 [amount of moving costs] LStH).

The brokerage fees for renting a suitable apartment are business-related. Since the broker makes taxable sales, the entrepreneur can deduct input tax under the general requirements of Section 15 (1) No. 1 UStG.

6.5.2. Additional tuition costs for the children

The additional tuition costs due to relocation are per child up to the following Maximum amount deductible (Section 9 (2) BUKG):

  • from 1.3.2016: € 1,882,

  • from 1.2.2017: € 1,926,

  • from 1.3.2018: € 1,984,

  • from 1.4.2019: € ​​2,045,

  • from 1.3.2020: € 2,066.

Note:

According to Section 9 (2) BUKG as amended until May 31, 2020, the expenses for additional lessons for the children of the entitled person due to the move (Section 6 (3) sentence 2 BUKG) will be up to forty percent of the amount at the time the move was completed decisive final basic salary of salary group A 12 of the Federal Salary Act (€ 5 166.19) for each child, up to fifty percent of this amount and three quarters of this amount (40% of € 5 166.19 = € 2,066) . Evidence of the additional relocation-related lessons must be provided by a certificate from the school.

“Additional tuition” is to be understood as tutoring. The prerequisite for reimbursement of expenses is that the lessons have become necessary due to the child's move and the associated change of school. This must either be proven in a suitable manner, e.g. by a certificate from the school, or the necessity will in future be assumed to be given in the event of a move-related change of state. The reason for the regulation is the different curriculum and framework plans of the previous school compared to those of the new school (BT-Drs. 19/13396, 133).

Example 1:

S. Schönfelder / Plenker in: Schönfelder / Plenker, Lexicon for the pay office 2020, 62nd edition 2020, moving costs under f) Lessons for children. S.a. Hartz / Meeßen / Wolf, ABC guide wage tax, moving costs margin no. 46.

The additional tuition costs (extra tuition) for a child due to the move in May 2020 are: 1,500 €.

Solution 1:

Proven tuition costs

1 500 €

50% of € 2,066 = are fully deductible

1 033 €

1 033 €

excess amount

467 €

3/4 of the excess amount is deductible

350 €

350 €

deductible in total

1 383 €

With a BMF letter dated October 18, 2016 (BStBl I 2016, 1147), the amounts for relocation-related teaching costs and other relocation expenses will be increased from 01/03/2016 and from 01/02/2017. With a BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027), the amounts for relocation-related teaching costs and other relocation expenses will be increased from 1.3.2018, 1.4.2019 and 1.3.2020.

The BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027) is no longer applicable to removals where the day before the goods are loaded is after May 31, 2020. With a BMF letter of May 20, 2020 (BStBl I 2020, 544), the amounts will be adjusted to the amended version of Section 9 (2) BUKG:

  • from 1.6.2020: a maximum of € 1,146 (Maximum amount).

Note:

Art. 7 of the Salary Structure Modernization Act (BesStMG) of December 9, 2019 (BGBl I 2019, 2053) resulted in changes to the BUKG with effect from June 1, 2020. In some cases, both the assessment basis and the percentages of the relevant flat-rate relocation costs have changed.

According to Section 9 (2) BUKG in the version of the BesStMG from 1.6.2020, the expenses for additional lessons for the children of the entitled person due to the move (Section 6 (3) sentence 2 BUKG) will be reimbursed, but not more than 20% of the day per child Before loading the removal goods, the final basic salary of grade A 13 (€ 5,731.19 × 20% = € 1,146) is decisive.

The change serves to simplify the previously complex regulation of full and partial reimbursement. The reference value of the maximum amount is the final basic salary of grade A 13 on the day before the goods are loaded.

The omission of a pro-rata reimbursement is compensated on the one hand by an increase in the amount that is fully reimbursed and on the other hand by a simplified proof of the necessity of tuition in the case of a move-related change of state. Until now, proof had to be provided that the lessons became necessary as a result of the move, e.g. through a certificate from the school. This was rarely used in practice. This possibility is to be retained and supplemented by the assumption that lessons that take place in connection with the move when changing a federal state are also due to the move, with the result that costs for this according to Section 9 (2) BUKG are up to the amount of Maximum amount will be reimbursed (BT-Drs. 19/13396, 134).

The granting of private tuition by private providers is basically according to § 4 No. 21 letter a double letter. bb UStG tax-free (OFD Frankfurt from July 25, 2011, S 7179 A - 7 - St 112, DB 2011, 2633).

An input tax deduction from the tax-free teaching services that are deductible as business expenses according to § 4 No. 21 letter a UStG is not possible, since the tutor cannot waive the tax exemption according to § 9 UStG and therefore is not allowed to show VAT separately in the invoice.

6.5.3. Expenses for a cooking stove

The expenses for a stove will be reimbursed up to an amount of 230 € if it is necessary to purchase it when moving into the new apartment. If the new apartment is a rental apartment, the expenses for stoves up to an amount of 163 € for each room will be reimbursed under the same conditions (Section 9 (3) BUKG).

It is questionable whether the expenses for a cooking stove in the entrepreneur's apartment are at all entrepreneurial. However, since the relocation costs are to be regarded as business-related in accordance with the income tax regulation, the input tax amounts from the purchase of the cooker are also deductible under the general requirements of Section 15 (1) No. 1 UStG. In my opinion, an amount limit - in analogous application of the provision for additional meals expenses, namely amount limit for income tax and full input tax deduction for VAT - is not an option for input tax deduction.

Note:

The law on the modernization of the structures of the salary law and the amendment of other service regulations (salary structure modernization law - BesStMG) of December 9th, 2019 (Federal Law Gazette I 2019, 2053) repeals § 9 paragraph 3 BUKG from June 1st, 2020.

The expenses previously settled with lump sums for a stove or oven for each room of an apartment are included in the newly aligned lump sum payment for other relocation expenses (Section 10 BUKG) and are therefore no longer shown separately. In particular, the deletion of the flat rates for heating stoves is necessary, since stove heating is no longer up-to-date and no longer relevant in practice (BT-Drs. 19/13396, 134).

6.6. Flat rate payments for other moving expenses according to § 10 BUKG

6.6.1. Flat rate payments until May 31, 2020

6.6.1.1. Flat rate allowance for married people

According to Section 10, Paragraph 1, Clause 2 BUKG in its current version until May 31, 2020, the following lump sums are to be granted:

  • from 1.3.2016: € 1,493,

  • from 1.2.2017: € 1,528,

  • from 1.3.2018: 1 573 €,

  • from 1.4.2019: 1 622 €,

  • from 1.3.2020: € 1,639.

With a BMF letter dated October 18, 2016 (BStBl I 2016, 1147), the amounts for relocation-related teaching costs and other relocation expenses will be increased from 01/03/2016 and from 01/02/2017. With a BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027), the amounts for relocation-related teaching costs and other relocation expenses will be increased from 1.3.2018, 1.4.2019 and 1.3.2020.

Note:

According to Section 10 (1) BUKG as amended until May 31, 2020, the flat-rate remuneration for the upper salary groups B 3 to B 11, C 4, R 3 to R 10 was 28.6% of the final basic salary of salary group A 13 on the day before the invitation Removal goods (€ 5,731.19 × 28.6% = € 1,639). For the lower grades, the flat-rate remuneration was 24.1% and 20.2% (€ 5,731.19 × 20.2% = € 1,157). Single people receive 50% of the respective maximum amount. The flat-rate remuneration increased by 6.3% of the final basic salary in grade A 13 (€ 5,731.19 × 6.3% = € 361; see section "Increase in the flat-rate remuneration" below).

The BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027) is no longer applicable to removals where the day before the goods are loaded is after May 31, 2020. With a BMF letter of May 20, 2020 (BStBl I 2020, 544), the amounts will be adjusted to the amended version of Section 10 BUKG (see section "Flat rate remuneration from 1.6.2020" below).

6.6.1.2. Flat rate remuneration for single people

According to Section 10, Paragraph 1, Clause 3 BUKG in its current version until May 31, 2020, the following lump sums are to be granted (50% of the amounts for married couples):

  • from 1.3.2016: 746 €,

  • from 1.2.2017: € 764,

  • from 1.3.2018: 787 €,

  • from 1.4.2019: 811 €,

  • from 1.3.2020: 820 €.

With a BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027), the amounts for relocation-related teaching costs and other relocation expenses will be increased from 1.3.2018, 1.4.2019 and 1.3.2020 (see above).

The BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027) is no longer applicable to removals where the day before the goods are loaded is after May 31, 2020. With the BMF letter of May 20, 2020 (BStBl I 2020, 544), the amounts will be adjusted to the amended version of § 10 BUKG (see section "Flat rate remuneration from June 1, 2020").

6.6.1.3. Increase in the flat fee

The flat rate increases for each person belonging to the household with the exception of the spouse (Section 10 (1) sentence 4 BUKG as amended by May 31, 2020) by € 329 from 1.3.2016 and by € 337 from 1.2.2017 (BMF from October 18, 2020). 2016, BStBl I 2016, 1147), from 1.3.2018 for 347 €, from 1.4.2019 for 357 € and from 1.3.2020 for 361 € (BMF of 21.9.2018, BStBl I 2018, 1027). The BMF letter dated September 21, 2018 (BStBl I 2018, 1027) is no longer applicable to removals where the day before the goods are loaded is after May 31, 2020. With the BMF letter of May 20, 2020 (BStBl I 2020, 544), the amounts will be adjusted to the amended version of § 10 BUKG (see section "Flat rate remuneration from 1.6.2020" below).

Important:

The prerequisite for the granting of this lump sum payment for other relocation expenses is that an apartment within the meaning of the Moving Costs Act was available before the move and that it will be furnished again after the move.

If the moving ArbN did not have his own apartment at his previous place of residence, but one will be furnished at the new place of residence, according to § 10 para. 4 BUKG in the current version until May 31, 2020, the applicable lump sum for other relocation expenses can only be in the amount of 30% for married people and 20% for single people.

6.6.2. Flat rate payments from 1.6.2020

Art. 7 of the Salary Structure Modernization Act (BesStMG) of December 9, 2019 (BGBl I 2019, 2053) resulted in changes to the BUKG with effect from June 1, 2020. In some cases, both the assessment basis and the percentages of the relevant flat-rate relocation costs have changed.

According to Section 10 (1) BUKG in the version of the BesStMG from June 1, 2020, those entitled who had an apartment on the day before the relocation goods were loaded and who have furnished an apartment again after the move will receive a lump sum payment for other relocation expenses. It amounts to

  1. for beneficiaries 15%,

  2. for every other person within the meaning of Section 6 Paragraph 3 Clause 1 BUKG who lives in the same household as the entitled person even after moving, 10%

the final basic salary of salary group A 13 (€ 5,731.19) on the day before the goods are loaded.

According to the BMF letter of May 20, 2020 (BStBl I 2020, 544), the amounts will be adjusted to the amended version of § 10 BUKG (see also note of June 10, 2020, LEXinform 0889480).

The lump sum for other moving expenses is:

  • from 1.6.2020: € 860 (€ 5,731.19 × 15% = € 859.68) for beneficiaries according to Section 10, Paragraph 1, Clause 2, No. 1 BUKG,

  • from 1.6.2020: € 573 (€ 5,731.19 × 10% = € 573.11) for every other person (spouse, life partner, children as well as unmarried children, stepchildren and foster children who also come with living with the entitled person in the same household; Section 10, Paragraph 1, Clause 2, No. 2 BUKG).

For those entitled who did not have an apartment on the day before the relocation goods were loaded or who did not set up their own apartment after moving, the flat-rate remuneration according to Section 10 (2) BUKG is:

  • From June 1, 2020: € 172 (5,731.19 × 3% = € 171.94).

Example 2:

An ArbN (authorized person) moves with his wife and two children from Landau / Pfalz to Stuttgart.

Solution 2:

The lump sums for other moving expenses within the meaning of § 10 BUKG are:

until May 31, 2020

from 1.6.2020

for husband

820 €

Beneficiary (Section 10, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, No. 1 BUKG: 15% of € 5,731.19)

860 €

for wife

819 €

for each additional person in the household (Section 10, Paragraph 1, Clause 2, No. 2 BUKG:

10% of 5 731.19 € = 573 €)

together (Section 10 (1) sentence 2 BUKG) 28.6% of the € 5,731.19 =

1639 €

each (Section 10 (1) sentence 4 BUKG: 6.3% of € 5,731.19)

for the wife

573 €

for child 1

361 €

for child 1

573 €

for child 2

361 €

for child 2

573 €

total

2 361 €

total

2 579 €

6.6.3. Proof of other moving expenses

The lump sum payments are granted for all other moving expenses not mentioned in §§ 6 to 9 BUKG.The ArbN can choose between these lump sums and the actual other moving costs (R 9.9, Paragraph 2, Clause 4 LStR).

The other moving costs such as

  • Advertisements in newspapers,

  • Installation and removal of the television antenna,

  • Telephone connection,

  • Re-registration of the car,

  • Description of identity card,

  • Newspaper advertisements,

  • Removing and attaching the lighting fixtures (not new purchases),

  • Removing or changing curtains (not new purchases),

  • Tips to moving staff

can also be proven in detail. However, this is only necessary if they exceed the lump sums. Even if an ArbN cannot provide evidence of other relocation expenses in the event of a professional move, he is entitled to the flat rate relocation costs according to § 10 BUKG (see judgment of FG Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania of February 5, 2020, 3 K 75/18, LEXinform 5023012).

Even in the case of a job-related move, expenses for the repair of rental damage in the previous apartment cannot be deducted as relocation-related expenses if these costs are independent of the job-related move from the taxpayer. In any case, should have been borne and not arose from the premature termination of the lease (judgment of FG Sachsen-Anhalt of April 29, 2014, 5 K 231/11, LEXinform 5016638, rkr.).

Since these expenses are privately induced, input tax deduction is not possible with regard to these expenses.

Proof of the relocation costs within the meaning of § 10 BUKG is necessary when relocating on the occasion of the establishment, termination or change of double housekeeping, because the flat rate does not apply (R 9.11, Paragraph 9 LStR).

The input tax deduction from the respective other relocation expenses is only possible with individual evidence in a proper invoice under the further requirements of § 15 Paragraph 1 No. 1 UStG. No input tax deduction is possible when using the flat-rate scheme.

7. No eligible business expenses or operating expenses

The professional reason for moving usually ends with moving into the first apartment at the new place of work. The expenses for the storage of furniture for the time from moving into this apartment to the completion of a residential building at or near the new place of work are therefore not included in the tax-deductible relocation costs (BFH judgment of 21.9.2000, IV R 78/99, BStBl II 2001, 70).

In the case of a professional move, expenses for equipping the new apartment are not deductible as business expenses / operating expenses (BFH judgment of December 17, 2002, VI R 188/98, BStBl II 2003, 314).

Expenses due to the sale of a home on the occasion of a professional move are not business expenses or business expenses (BFH judgment of May 24, 2000, VI R 147/99, BStBl II 2000, 476).

The aforementioned operating expenses that cannot be taken into account (costs of living according to Section 12 No. 1 Clause 1 EStG) cannot be allocated to the company under VAT law either (allocation ban). The input tax deduction is excluded according to § 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 UStG (→ input tax deduction under the section "Expenses according to § 12 Nr. 1 EStG").

8. Employer reimbursements

Relocation expenses allowances from the ArbG are tax-free wages upon payment

  1. from public coffers according to § 3 No. 13 EStG,

  2. In the private service for official reasons, up to the amount of the relocation expenses allowance of comparable federal officials including lump sum for so-called other relocation expenses without individual proof of the actual expenses (§ 3 No. 16 EStG, R 9.9 Abs. 3 LStR).

Remuneration that the Stpfl. receives as compensation for his expenses, reduce the deductible income-related expenses.

Brokerage costs that an ArbN has been reimbursed by his ArbG on the occasion of his professional move for the acquisition of a self-used single-family house are fully taxable wages (OFD Koblenz dated December 9, 2009, S 2338 A - St 32 2). The reimbursed brokerage costs are fully taxable wages, as the brokerage fees do not represent any business expenses as they would have been incurred for the brokerage of a comparable rental apartment (R 9.9, Paragraph 2, Clause 1 LStR and BFH judgment of May 24, 2000, VI R 188 / 97, Federal Tax Gazette I 2000, 586). Furthermore, the BFH has consistently held the view that travel and relocation allowances in the public sector are only to be left tax-free in accordance with Section 3 No. 13 EStG if the nature of the reimbursed expenses is income-related expenses within the meaning of Section 9 (1) EStG .

Note:

With regard to the input tax deduction of the brokerage costs assumed by the ArbG, the BFH decided in a ruling of June 6, 2019 (VR 18/18, BStBl II 2020, 293) that the assumption of moving costs by the ArbG as part of a group restructuring is not related to services an exchange-like turnover, as the assumption of the relocation costs by the ArbG is not directly related to the work performed by the ArbN, but rather serves to create the preconditions for the ArbN to be able to perform the work (→ benefits in kind).

A taxable free service within the meaning of Section 3 (9a) No. 2 UStG does not exist with regard to the brokerage costs assumed by the ArbG if the personal advantage of the ArbN over the needs of the entrepreneur is secondary and is superimposed by these (see also Sect. 3.4 Para 3 UStAE). This is the case if, in the interest of rapid corporate restructuring, the assumption of the brokerage costs is only granted to employees who are employed at corporate locations whose location does not allow them to start work at the new corporate location without moving. If the assumption of moving costs is caused by overriding business interests, an existing personal advantage that does not preclude the needs of the company does not preclude an input tax deduction from the invoices issued to the ArbG (see BFH press release no. 64/2019 of 10.10.2019, LEXinform 0450417 as well as note from October 15, 2019, LEXinform 0653677).

Note:

If the ArbG is more interested in assuming these costs, the ArbG does not provide any sales tax service to its ArbN. At the same time, the ArbG has an input tax deduction from input services that are related to the relocation costs assumed. The prerequisite is that the ArbG is designated as the recipient of the service in the broker's invoices (see also BMF of 3.6.2020, BStBl I 2020, 546).

According to the BMF letter of June 3, 2020 (BStBl I 2020, 546), the principles of the BFH ruling of June 6, 2019 (V R 18/18, BStBl II 2020, 293) are to be applied. A new no. 12 is inserted in Section 1.8 Paragraph 4 Clause 3 UStAE. According to this, there are non-taxable services with regard to the assumption of moving costs by the ArbG for the ArbN benefiting from this, if the assumption of costs is in the overriding operational interest of the ArbG.

In return, a service subject to VAT should be assumed if the interests of the ArbN prevail. In this case, a free value transfer - withdrawal for income tax purposes - is to be assumed. An input tax deduction on the part of the Labor Law is excluded (Section 15.15, Paragraph 1 UStAE; BFH V R 18/18, Rz. 26).

9. Bibliography

Schneider, ABC guide sales tax (loose leaf); Rondorf, input tax deduction from meals, accommodation, travel, relocation and representation costs, NWB Fach 7, 6189.

 

Note to editors: