Until now, the tax office has insisted that expenses for household-related services are only recognised for tax purposes if the services were performed within the physical boundaries of the household. However, the BFH has now ruled in recent decisions (case nos. VI R 55/12 and VI R 56/12) that services performed outside the property boundary must also be recognised, such as snow clearance, cleaning of streets and pavements, or work on water connections.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
Are household-related services performed outside the property recognised for tax purposes?
Yes. According to the BFH rulings of 20.03.2014 (VI R 55/12 and VI R 56/12), household-related services are also eligible for tax relief when performed beyond the property boundaries. The prerequisite is a spatial and functional connection to the household. The previously restrictive view of the tax authorities has thereby been rejected.
Which specific services outside the property qualify as household-related tax benefits?
Eligible services include, in particular, snow removal as well as the cleaning of the street and sidewalk in front of the property. Work on water connections located outside the property boundary may also be recognized as household-related services or tradesperson services. The decisive factor is that the service benefits the household.
Which case numbers are decisive for the broader recognition of household-related services?
The relevant decisions are the BFH rulings under case numbers VI R 55/12 and VI R 56/12. In these rulings, the Bundesfinanzhof held that the spatial boundary of the household does not necessarily end at the property line. Taxpayers can rely on this case law.
What was the tax authorities' position before the BFH rulings on services performed outside the property?
Previously, the tax office only recognized expenses for household-related services if they were performed within the spatial boundaries of the household, i.e., on the taxpayer's own property. Activities on public areas such as sidewalks were rejected. This narrow interpretation has been superseded by BFH case law.