German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/237, pp.
30900-30901.
Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.
Football Germany experienced a moment of horror at the game
of the national team against France when a para-glider in the course of its
demonstration flight nearly unleashed a catastrophe. This proceeding, according
to the current legal situation, is an emission of a Greenpeace common use activity.
Plainly the question of what actually common use can be in
the sense of tax law has to be decided by the tax administration in the case of
Attac. This political network arose in Germany with a “declaration for
democratic control of the financial market”. This resolution was undersigned by
various leftist-directed organizations and by politicians of Bundnis 90/Die Grünen
and the SPD.
According to statements of the Hessen Fiscal Court, Attac is
active as follows: The association “promoted demands of concrete tax policy for
an improvement of the income of the entire State, exercised criticism of the
Federal government’s legal proposal, applied itself with an on-line appeal to
the Federal Chancellor and Federal Ministers…, arranged collections of
signatures and demanded of ‘die Politik’
to no longer fiscally favor holding companies like investment funds”, and
demanded state political projects “which subject the public to democratic
control” [„der demokratischen Kontrolle der Öffentlicjkeit zu
unterwerfen”]. – End quote.
Michael Schrodi (SPD): Very good demands!
Appropriately, the BFH
[Federal Fiscal Court] in 2019 then needed to come to the conclusion that in
regards campaigns substantially managed by Attac, it was not about the
provision of educational content, but about a – quote – “publicly effective
presentation and carrying through of its own conceptions on daily political
themes and thereby about influencing the political decision-making process and
public opinion”.
In its second decision in the scope of the revision on
December 10, 2020, the BFH was then
still more clear: “The influencing of political decision-making and the
formation of public opinion is not an independent common use purpose in the
sense of §52 of the tax code”. And: The complainant “cannot place in question
by means of its understanding of the term political education” the BFH’s decision. – End quote.
§52 of the tax code presently permits the merger of tax-favored
corporate bodies into a kind of tax-favored corporate body concern in which,
according to §58 of the tax code, tax-favored corporate bodies are allowed to send on their
own tax-favored income to other tax-favored corporate bodies. Thereby is in
question whether this is reconcilable with the principle of immediacy in
pursuit of a tax-favored purpose by means of a corporate body which receives
from members and donors concrete gifts which go to a concrete purpose. For the
immediate pursuit of a purpose is a prerequisite for achieving the status of
the common use organization.
In view of a legal situation clarified by a Federal superior
court, it could be expected that now nationwide the Finance officials examine
their cases of common use – and particularly by means of an inspection of the
facts – as to whether there are to be found comparable organizations which are
illegally obtaining tax favors; especially if these privileges have been
authorized: No corporate tax, no basic tax, no real property tax, a moderated
turnover tax.
In addition, acknowledged common use organizations are
authorized to issue donation vouchers to natural persons and to businesses.
Both groups can each year direct up to 20 percent of their revenue or profits
to such organizations and write off such contributions from their basic tax
assessment.
Abuse blooms as a result of so many subventions. Thus then
can motorized para-gliders be commissioned, demonstrations organized with large
devices for generating noise and travel cost compensation for participants, a printing
of leaflets and a financing of advertisements which will be paid for Bundestag
members, etc., etc. A known transfer from members to such business models is
not to be overlooked. With such tax subventions will be erected an entire scene
of so-called civil society organizations which shall then lend democratic
legitimacy to bad politics.
All of this is indeed the reason why the Federal Finance
Minister and the State Finance Ministers have agreed on a kind of
non-application decree until the end of 2021. That is a scandal and a
nullification of the verdict, ladies and gentlemen.Your intent was indeed in this
legislative period to legalize the abuses of Greenpeace, Attac & Co. That
fortunately, up to today, has not succeeded.
We therefore demand [Drucksache
19/30970] securing as quickly as possible the existing legal situation and,
additionally, thinning out the catalogue of promoted purposes in §52 of the tax
code. It contains rubber clauses, as for example in numeral 25 – quote – “the
promotion of citizens’ engagement in favor of common use, benevolent and church
purposes”.
Here is urgently required a legislative clarification.
Surreptitious or abusive common use, ladies and gentlemen,
is tax embezzlement, and certainly when it is committed by leftist fighting
organizations.
Hearty thanks.
[trans: tem]
