The final accounts for Corona economic aid have been completed, or at least the deadlines have passed. But the issue is far from over for advisors and clients. Different legal opinions in the federal states and the individual processing speed of the administration complicate the situation. There are also major mandates. A tax advisor and an auditor report.
Tax advisor Claudia Thaller-Birkigt is very angry. “The frustration is huge,” says partner at the law firm WNP Dr. Wasmer Thaller & Partner from Dresden, “We are being forced to do rework and we are being subtly accused of aiding and abetting subsidy fraud.”
She applied for November aid for many clients – only to do the same again after retroactive changes. “And all of this without charging extra,” reports Thaller-Birkigt. That was a learning experience; she only applied for December aid after the third round of FAQs. “My clients have accepted that. Although there were many smaller hotel businesses and restaurateurs whose existence was at stake, we did not lose any mandate.”
Lack of respect in interactions
She talks about colleagues who were treated with less understanding. “They had to let themselves be yelled at,” says Thaller-Birkigt. In addition to the interpersonal derailments, she denounces the ignorance of the administration. “I don’t understand how maintenance work can be carried out on the portal in the last two weeks before the deadline – you can’t have less respect for the people who carry out auxiliary work for the state here.”
Image: Claudia Thaller-Birkigt “To this day, I’m still upset by the small and small nature of the state secretaries, lawyers and quibblers, simply the fact that they haven’t given us anything to help with,” says tax advisor Claudia Thaller-Birkigt.
When asked what annoys her more, the unprofessional approach or the indifference of politics and administration, she says: “To this day, the little-little of the state secretaries, lawyers and quibblers still annoys me, simply the fact that they don’t say anything to us gave hands. We have no legal certainty and training has not been able to keep up with the pace of change.”
Support only with legal continuity?
She found the structure of economic aid particularly problematic following the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling, which prohibited the reallocation of money from the Corona budget to the climate protection fund. “At some point our professional representatives should have said: ‘It’s enough, we’ll only take part here on the condition that there are no more binding changes.’” But that didn’t happen, and the industry hardly has any legal recourse. “If you file a lawsuit before the administrative court, you have no chance as long as everyone is treated the same – badly –,” explains the native of Upper Bavaria.
Whether this is actually the case remains to be seen. The administration has until 2027 to check all final accounts and issue the notices. Apparently they started with the smaller cases, as WP/StB Heiner Röttger from HLB Schumacher GmbH Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a tax consulting company in Münster, states. He himself is not directly involved in the application process, but acts as a coordinator of assistance within the law firm. “In addition to the two major applications that I submitted myself, which involve several million, all the emails from the other cases also come across my desk,” he reports.
Lots of questions about smaller cases
He observes something interesting: “While we see an enormous amount of effort with regular, in our opinion, disproportionately extensive queries with the small applications, we have not heard anything at all with the large ones.” He is excited to see how it will go and has no thesis as to why is that the larger applications have so far played no role in the administration. One thing is certain: “Once you’re in the ping-pong game of questions, it’s difficult to get out of it. I assume that this topic will keep us busy for years to come.”
Image: Heiner Röttger “I assume that the topic will keep us busy for years to come,” says WP/StB Heiner Röttger.
It is noticeable that the administration, like almost all other sectors, lacks skilled workers and that processing times are therefore long. His solution: “We try to submit robust applications and document everything meticulously so that we can provide information quickly even if there is a longer time delay.” In addition to the stretched timeline, he finds the lack of a sense of proportion to be a problem. “A little discretion and the use of the appropriate leeway wouldn’t be a bad thing,” says Röttger.
Thaller-Birkigt also criticizes the meticulousness: “If I, as a third party checking, am supposed to state or confirm the second place after the decimal point everywhere, then that is exaggerated.” Evidence, receipts, due dates – all of these were things that were needed at the beginning should be deliberately excluded in order to provide companies with liquidity quickly. “It was clear that we would have to provide proof of use at some point,” says the consultant, “but the manner and category of due date go far beyond the mark.”
Significant additional calculations required
WP/StB Röttger also finds it difficult to rely on due dates: “Companies book in the income statement differently than the legislature now wants for Corona aid, which requires considerable additional invoices.” He also criticizes the fact that the approval authorities have different legal opinions would be represented. This can be both an opportunity and a risk for companies.
The consultant also expresses criticism with regard to the FAQ practice and the associated frequent changes in legal assessment: “That made life difficult for us. We had to record when and which answers were valid in order to justify the practiced approach.” Failure to keep assurances, especially information from the administration, facts could be corrected later in the final accounting, but this would have required an application for change afterwards, costing clients resources Thaller-Birkigt complains that they were actually entitled to. This fact alone would have left many consultants at a loss for explanation.
Despite many forced, unpleasant extra rounds, Röttger can also see positive things from the Corona aid: “It was right and good to build a liquidity bridge for companies, the money usually arrived quickly and in this respect the instrument fulfilled its purpose.” Whether was this fair in all cases? There is no justice anyway, so one can state that the national economy as such has benefited. He also praises the legislator’s logistical achievement in quickly establishing a portal.
Positive conclusion and future resolutions
And while his professional colleague reports on clients who have dissolved, Röttger says retrospectively: “The large companies dealt with the issue very professionally and initiated their own responsibilities for it. It was emotional at best at the beginning, but now it’s nothing more than an annoyance.”
But that can also have consequences, for example with Thaller-Birkigt: “I say clearly: We will no longer take on additional tasks for the state in the future, that was a lesson for us. Let’s see what happens with the reporting obligation for cash register systems, which comes at the turn of the year.” She also prefers to keep more distance from everything that relates to subsidies than before.
But there is also a positive aspect for Thaller-Birkigt, namely the networking within her circle of colleagues. “We exchanged ideas well on Facebook and that helped enormously,” she says. “I appreciate the fact that we got through it together, that we were able to argue objectively and that we often turned panicked into grateful clients.”
