Good morning,
the tax office does not want to recognize my loss carryforward.
Due to my dual studies, there are advertising costs and no special expenses.
The income-related expenses clearly exceed the employee lump sum of EUR 1,000 (Section 9a EStG), my income during my studies is below the basic tax-free allowance and I did not pay any taxes in the years 2016-2019. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that I still have a positive income because I get a monthly salary.
My tax professional regularly told us that we can make a loss carryforward (according to §10d EStG), despite income, because we were below the basic tax allowance and have not paid any taxes. As a dual student, no amount of negative income can arise, as you consequently do the dual study to get a salary and cap the income. I know that §10d EStG speaks of negative income. Nevertheless, it can’t be that my high WKs, which are well above the flat rate, simply evaporate.
When I submitted my tax return, I didn’t know that it was WK. That only became apparent in the opposition proceedings.
Extract from the script:
If you look closely, in the context of Section 10d EStG, it is not a negative ZvE, but the negative “sum of income” that is determined.
This small but subtle difference unfortunately also means that all SA and GTC of the VZ are neither returned nor carried forward, but rather expire without compensation!
… and before that, horizontal and vertical loss compensation already ensured maximum offsetting of losses in VZ. But that’s completely ok for you …
There is currently only an option with regard to the amount when carrying back to the previous year.
Of course, you initially only pay back so much that you get the sum of the basic allowance plus the lump sums and other allowances (e.g. § 20 (9) EStG) for this VZ and nothing more! Any higher carry-back would be ineffective in the basic allowance. However, if you were able to apply WK in the year of carry-back that are above the lump sum of € 1,000 (Section 9a EStG), you can of course have the loss carry-back be even lower. The amount saved in this way will then be used again in later DCs as a loss carryforward because it has not yet been used.
In addition, you always have to keep an eye on the marginal tax rate. From an economic point of view, it would also be nonsense if you get back the entire income tax of the previous year through the carry-back, but then cannot carry anything forward, although the marginal tax rate is significantly higher in the next periods. Here it would be better to just put something back and bring the rest forward so that after deducting the § 10d amount, the marginal tax rate is the same in all affected VZ. This means that the notice of loss assessment had the same effect in all of the DCs affected by it, and thus also to a maximum extent that would reduce tax.
– .
