Constitutionally controversial : the solidarity surcharge. Source: AP
DÜSSELDORF. According to the commuters and the work it could in solidarity – in short solos – be another unconstitutional . For the solos is before the Federal Constitutional Court proceedings. This was introduced after the German reunification in 1991, was to finance mainly the economic development in the east .
For this purpose, but he will no longer be used exclusively , but goes into the general budget. Total flowed so far over the solos are almost 200 billion € in the state treasury and completely to the federal government.
This high rise is one of the reasons why the tax courts of Hamburg ( Ref. 3 V 62/10 ) and Ontario ( Ref. 12 V 58/10 ) come in two recent decisions of the opinion that the solos , despite doubts about the constitutionality may be further raised and the applicant taxpayers by way of interim relief does not suspend the execution is granted.
No stay of execution
Although Karlsruhe is already a constitutional complaint before the question of whether this additional levy about 20 years after reunification is still legal. However, the treasury may collect the solos continue . Would the levy initially suspended once, would have significant adverse effects on public finances , especially since virtually every taxpayer would benefit from it. From this point must be by the interests of individual citizens, first of all . Even when the Supreme Court should declare the solidarity surcharge law unconstitutional, it would be allowed to apply initially expected more. This is comparable to the situation at the former inheritance tax law and the deduction of health insurance contributions as special . In that regard, would be suspended only to the fact that taxpayers would then be charged with massive additional claims .
Due to the existing doubts about the constitutionality of the tax share Solis tax assessments currently defines only preliminary. The levy is paid on time , although the issue remains open as long until a final decision of the Constitutional Court has fallen.
This benefits investors, whose investment income retained by the banks in addition to the flat tax and the solos automatically. The investor should indicate its currently compensate taxable interest , dividends or capital gains , therefore the plant KAP in the income tax return in 2009 to get the Vorläufigkeitsvermerk on the investment income on this detour. If the judges deem the collection does not retroactively ineligible, the surcharge levied by the banks will be reimbursed later.
Oliver Holzinger is a tax lawyer and editor of THE PROPERTY . www.der – betrieb.de