We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
BFH also adheres to the accounting principle for the transition year
Contributions to private basic health insurance are always offset against premium reimbursements paid in the same year. This also applies if the reimbursement is granted for the previous year, but in which the contributions were not fully tax deductible, as the Federal Finance Court (BFH) in Munich decided in a judgment published on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, on the 2010 transitional tax year (Az .: XR 6/14).
Health and long-term care insurance contributions count as special tax-reducing expenses. However, upper limits apply to private health insurance (PKV). In 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court rejected them as insufficient at the time. Protection to the extent of statutory health and long-term care insurance is part of the minimum subsistence level under social law; Corresponding protection must therefore also remain untaxed in private health insurance (resolution of February 13, 2008, file number: 2 BvL 1/06).
Due to a new legal regulation, contributions to basic health insurance have been fully deductible as special expenses since 2010. The benefits correspond to those of the statutory insurance. There are currently 29,400 privately insured with a basic tariff.
In 2010, the insured received a premium refund for 2009 in the event of a dispute. Such reimbursements are granted by private insurers in particular if the insured have not used any benefits for a year.
The tax office offset this reimbursement against the contributions paid in 2010, thereby reducing the tax deduction. The plaintiff defended himself: the reimbursement had been granted for 2010 when he had not yet been able to fully claim the contributions for tax purposes.
The BFH now adhered to the principle that reimbursed special expenses are always to be counted against the "paid similar special expenses" of the reimbursement year. This also applies to church tax, for example. There is no violation of the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court, it says in the judgment of July 6, 2016, which has now been published in writing