Ne
ws

Collateral consequences of criminal tax proceedings can affect both taxi drivers and taxi business owners.

I. License to transport passengers

Drivers face the risk of losing their license to transport passengers (Section 48 of the Driving License Ordinance – FeV). The legal basis for the revocation is Section 3 (1) sentence 1 of the Road Traffic Act (StVG) in conjunction with Section 48 (10) sentence 1 of the Driving License Ordinance (FeV). The license to transport passengers must be revoked if a prerequisite for its issuance under Section 48 (4) FeV is no longer met—specifically, if the holder no longer provides assurance that they can meet the special responsibilities involved in transporting passengers (Section 48 (4) no. 2a FeV). Tax evasion under Section 370 of the Fiscal Code (AO) is an offense against property involving tax law. Consequently—particularly in cases of systematic conduct committed over extended periods—it can call into question a person's character-based suitability for transporting passengers, as it may demonstrate a lack of willingness to comply with the law and a ruthless pursuit of profit. In such a scenario, the licensing authority may make a negative prognosis and revoke the license to transport passengers pursuant to Section 48 (10) FeV, even if the tax evasion is not directly linked to the actual transport of passengers. Section 48 FeV does not specify a rigid threshold (e.g., a specific financial loss amount); the decisive factor is an overall assessment of the individual's personality and misconduct, based on the nature, duration, intensity, and number of violations.

II. Authorization under the Passenger Transportation Act (PBefG)

For taxi and private hire vehicle operators, the taxi license is at risk of revocation—concurrently with or independently of the passenger transport permit—pursuant to Section 25 (1) of the Passenger Transportation Act (PBefG) if the requirement of personal reliability under Section 13 (1) sentence 1 no. 2 PBefG is no longer met. The PBZugV (Ordinance on Access to the Occupation of Road Passenger Transport Operator) specifies what constitutes unreliability: serious violations of tax-related obligations arising from business operations (Section 1 (2) sentence 1 no. 2 letter d PBZugV) are expressly deemed indicative of unreliability, without the need for a criminal conviction.

III. Case Law

In a case involving systematic tax evasion by a taxi operator, the Administrative Court of Cologne expressly held that the mandatory revocation of the operating license pursuant to Section 25 (1) of the Passenger Transportation Act (PBefG) was warranted due to a lack of personal reliability.

Given the gravity of the allegations and the fact that the plaintiff failed to comply with his tax-related record-keeping and declaration obligations over an extended period—starting as early as the commencement of taxi operations in May 2011—there was a serious violation of tax obligations justifying mandatory revocation under Section 25 (1) PBefG, notwithstanding the ultimately "lenient" criminal penalty imposed. Since the plaintiff systematically and deliberately evaded taxes and—for the aforementioned reasons—demonstrated a lack of personal reliability, the case clearly does not fall under Section 25 (2) PBefG, contrary to the plaintiff's legal position. Consequently, it is immaterial whether the plaintiff provided proof pursuant to Section 25 (3) PBefG by submitting—or potentially submitting—a tax clearance certificate.

Administrative Court of Cologne, Judgment of March 9, 2018 – 18 K 7560/16