The German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) has once again clarified that a prima facie presumption of private use of a company vehicle applies even where private use is expressly prohibited. With this decision, the First Senate continues its stricter line of case law and at the same time distinguishes itself from the more restrictive approach taken by the Sixth Senate in wage tax matters. In practice, this significantly increases the risk of hidden profit distribution.
Hidden profit distribution due to potential private use of company cars
The ruling was based on the following facts: A German limited liability company (GmbH) held several high-priced vehicles in its corporate assets, which the sole shareholder-managing director could access at any time. However, the private use of the vehicles was expressly prohibited. Nevertheless, the tax office assumed that private use had occurred and assessed a hidden profit distribution equal to 25 percent of the net vehicle costs.
The company countered that, according to the case law of the Sixth Senate, a prima facie presumption of private use can only stand if it is established that the vehicle was actually made available for private use in the first place. However, the tax office maintained its position, and the company was also unsuccessful in the subsequent litigation before the Hesse State Fiscal Court. The company’s subsequent appeal against the denial of review was dismissed by the BFH.
Rebutting the presumption of private use: logbooks, controls, and private alternatives
To shake this prima facie presumption, a mere prohibition on private use is not enough. Instead, the BFH requires robust countermeasures. These include a properly maintained mileage log, effective organizational controls, or credible private alternatives available for personal trips. Because there is no inherent conflict of interest – which typically exists between a regular employee and an employer – stricter standards must be applied here. In the absence of such measures, the tax authorities will typically assume private use has occurred.
Would you like to receive news like this in your inbox every month? Subscribe to our newsletter “German Nonprofit Update”.
Consequently, if a managing director or board member uses a company vehicle without documented separation between business and private trips, this can be treated as a hidden benefit in Germany – even if the articles of association or internal guidelines prohibit private use. This results in additional tax burdens and, in extreme cases, risks to the organization’s tax-exempt status in Germany due to a violation of proper actual management.
Avoiding liability and tax risks
The ruling underscores that formal regulations alone are insufficient to rule out private use. What matters most is how the actual management and operations are organized. For nonprofit organizations, this means an increased liability risk for board members and managing directors, particularly regarding the use of funds and corporate governance. If private use is neither prevented nor documented, it can be classified as an improper use of funds, thereby indirectly jeopardizing the organization’s charitable status.
We therefore recommend implementing clear and practical control mechanisms. A properly maintained mileage log remains the most crucial tool to rebut the prima facie presumption. In addition, internal policies should be reviewed and tightened if necessary. Without such measures, organizations face additional tax burdens from hidden profit distributions, as well as liability risks for management.
Comprehensive corporate governance advice for Nonprofits in Germany
In conclusion, the question remains: does your organization already meet the requirements of current BFH case law? Can you provide robust evidence during a tax audit that a private use prohibition is actually being enforced? And are your internal control measures sufficiently documented?
Our nonprofit team is here to help you structure your processes in a legally compliant manner and avoid tax risks early on. Please feel free to contact us.
BFH, Decision of Dec. 17, 2025, I B 17/24
