Steuern: Viel unterwegs? So setzen Selbstständige den Dienstwagen richtig ab

Self-employed individuals often incur significant costs related to vehicle usage, making it worthwhile to claim these expenses on their taxes. However, when working part-time from home and part-time at a conventional office location, several factors must be considered to ensure that the costs are beneficial for tax purposes. This was highlighted by a recent ruling from the Federal Finance Court (case III R 18/25).

The case involved a self-employed intermediary who operated from an office where he employed several staff members. He frequently worked from home or traveled to clients for business visits, using his company car for these journeys.

The entrepreneur did not maintain a travel diary, leading to the private usage of his vehicle being assessed according to the one-percent rule. This regulation taxes the car based on its gross list price, with a flat rate of 0.03 percent of the list price applied to the costs of trips between the entrepreneur's home and office. During a business audit, the relevant tax authority revised the entrepreneur's claims for 2015 to 2017.

The authority considered the office as a business location, thereby reducing the deduction for travel expenses from home to the business location by the calculated amount (0.03 percent of the list price). This amounted to 220 trips, which was detrimental to the self-employed individual's tax situation.

The entrepreneur appealed the decision to the Cologne Finance Court, but the court also ruled that the intermediary's external office was deemed a business location. Similarly, the subsequent revision by the Federal Finance Court reached the same conclusion. According to the court, it is not necessary for the self-employed individual to work daily on-site; regularity is established by using the office regularly and with a certain frequency for their professional activities.

Fifteen days per month are considered sufficient as regular usage. Additionally, the entrepreneur stored documents in the office, coworkers worked there, and he performed his managerial functions at the office. The fact that the self-employed individual's work primarily took place at home and in the field was irrelevant for categorizing the external office as a business location.

In contrast to the self-employed, the Federal Finance Court also recognized no disadvantage in the way business locations are treated for self-employed individuals compared to the primary workplace of employees. They justified this perspective primarily by stating that self-employed individuals do not follow orders, including the choice of workplace.

They emphasized that the actual costs incurred could be determined through the maintenance of a travel diary. The court argued that companies already face recording and storage obligations, making the travel diary method a reasonable means for self-employed individuals to claim their specific expenses. Nevertheless, it was stressed that precise and complete recording of all relevant data is essential, as failure to do so may result in the travel diary being rejected during a tax audit.