Operating a photovoltaic system on the premises of a single company is due to the heterogeneity of the activities and the lack of organizational and economic integration a separate business entity (FG Schleswig-Holstein, Judgement of 09.22.2010 - 2 C 282/07).
The case before the FG:
achieved the applicant as a retail merchant business income. In He also scored from a since 2005 on the roof of his retail installed photovoltaic system also business income. From the technology and the settlement process can come to the energy gained by the plant to the utility E-ON Hanse delivered and paid for a refund. On the other hand, the plaintiff receives from the utility's usual electric bill. A direct supply of electricity generated in their own use was not. The applicant stated in the business tax (trade tax) Declaration of 2005 in a joint profit determination and a common Trade Tax Declaration combined income from retail and photovoltaic system. The proceeds from the operation of the photovoltaic system amounted to 815.69 EUR. The rate in the calculation of profit for 2005 included losses from the operation of the photovoltaic system therefore 6,364.54 EUR. The tax office, fixing the trade tax-base value for 2005 for retail. Here, the income from the photovoltaic system is not included. For the photovoltaic system with a separate decision forwards trade loss in the amount of 6,364.00 EUR noted.
The FG leads to more of:
There are two separate businesses within the meaning of § 2 para 1 TTA. These are disparate activities, which complement each other does not. There is a lack of economic and organizational Context. Both businesses have an independent to participate in economic life.
The business of the applicant is not a producer's premises, but essentially a commercial enterprise. Photovoltaic systems are not a commodity of the shop. It has been contended nor shown that a distribution of such equipment was intended. In the local "connection" can be neither a "business support" even more "market effectiveness" be. These complementary activities are therefore not, they are dissimilar.
complement the activities are not good business sense because their own where products (current) not sold in stores. There is neither a single supplier or customer base. Also, there is no organizational context, as an ongoing management not including staff for the operation of the photovoltaic system is required and may not take place, moreover, in the same premises would. There is joint managing it if all of the plaintiff as an entrepreneur, which is not relevant because this relationship is necessarily the businessman equality (Lenski / Steinberg, Trade Tax Act, § 2 Rd 1713). Furthermore, the photovoltaic system independent assets (operating device) operation photovoltaic system.
Note: The revision was approved for the development of the law.
Source: NCA database
0 comments:
Post a Comment