When are universal vouchers to be recognised as benefits in kind for wage tax purposes – and when do they constitute cash remuneration? The Saxon Fiscal Court has addressed this question; however, its decision raises a number of legal issues which will now also be considered by the Federal Fiscal Court.
Table of Contents
Current statutory rules on the classification of vouchers as benefits in kind
With effect from 1 January 2020, vouchers must meet the requirements set out in section 8(1), sentence 3 of the German Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz – “EStG”) in order to qualify as benefits in kind for wage tax purposes. Accordingly, vouchers constitute benefits in kind if they exclusively entitle the holder to obtain goods or services and meet the criteria of section 2(1) no. 10 of the German Payment Services Supervision Act (Zahlungsdiensteaufsichtsgesetz – “ZAG”). In addition, the vouchers must be provided to employees in addition to their remuneration and may not be granted in lieu of a salary increase (section 8(4) EStG).
The German Federal Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium der Finanzen – “BMF”) has set out its interpretation of the new rules in a detailed circular (BStBl. I 2022, 242; “BMF Circular”). In the BMF’s view, vouchers which can be redeemed with the issuer (exclusively) for other vouchers issued by merchants (“target vouchers”), i.e. so-called universal vouchers, do not meet the requirements of section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG. The Saxon Fiscal Court has now had the opportunity to consider the classification of universal vouchers as benefits in kind (Saxon Fiscal Court, judgment of 11 December 2025 – 8 K 484/24).
The case before the Saxon Fiscal Court
A company (“Company”) issues a (universal) voucher which employees can redeem online via a platform operated by the Company for (target) vouchers issued by merchants. From a technical perspective, this is implemented by crediting employees’ rewards accounts through monthly payments made by the employer to the Company.
Key findings of the Fiscal Court
The Fiscal Court’s key findings can be summarised as follows:
Cash income also includes earmarked cash payments, subsequent reimbursements of expenses, cash surrogates and other benefits denominated in a monetary amount (section 8(1), sentence 2 EStG).
The requirements for classification as a benefit in kind under section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG were not met in the case at hand. According to the Court, neither the Company nor the employer had issued a voucher. The credit balance in the rewards account could not be used to obtain goods or services, even though the credit balance was, in this respect, comparable to a type of voucher.
Furthermore, the requirements for classification as a benefit in kind under section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG were not met because Amazon vouchers could be obtained and, consequently, the criteria of section 2(1) no. 10 ZAG were not satisfied.
Moreover, the requirements set out in paragraph 24(f) of the BMF Circular for the classification as benefits in kind of vouchers that can be redeemed exclusively for other vouchers were not met, since the credit balance in the rewards account was available to the employee prior to redemption.
Comments on the judgment of the Saxon Fiscal Court
The Fiscal Court assumes that neither the Company nor the employer issues a voucher, although elsewhere it states that the rewards account is a type of voucher. Furthermore, the Fiscal Court does not explain what constitutes, or is intended to constitute, a voucher within the meaning of section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG. From a legal perspective, the Court could have examined whether the employee has a right to obtain a target voucher from the Company. The technical form in which a voucher is provided (e.g. physical or digital) and the terminology used to describe it (rewards account, credit balance, voucher) should not be relevant when determining the circumstances in which a voucher exists within the meaning of section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG.
Furthermore, without any further examination, the Fiscal Court assumes that target vouchers which themselves qualify as benefits in kind do not fall within the terms “goods and services” within the meaning of section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG. However, the terms “goods and services” are also used in section 8(3) EStG. There is case law of the Federal Fiscal Court (Bundesfinanzhof – “BFH”) on the interpretation of the terms “goods and services” in section 8(3) EStG (e.g. BFH, judgment of 4 November 1994 – VI R 81/93, BStBl. II 1995, 338; BFH, judgment of 29 September 2019 – VI R 23/17, BStBl. II 2020, 162). According to this case law, the terms “goods and services” within the meaning of section 8(3) EStG correspond to the general concept of remuneration in kind (benefit in kind) and serve to distinguish such remuneration from cash remuneration. It could therefore have been examined whether the terms “goods and services” should be interpreted consistently within one and the same statutory provision (section 8 EStG). In other words: why should a voucher (universal voucher) constitute cash remuneration if it can only be used to acquire benefits in kind (target vouchers)?
The Fiscal Court further states that, where an Amazon voucher can be obtained as a target voucher, the criteria of section 2(1) no. 10 ZAG are not met. This statement is ambiguous, as it is unclear whether the Court is referring to the classification as a benefit in kind of a voucher issued by the Company or to the Amazon voucher itself. If the question is whether the Amazon voucher itself qualifies as a benefit in kind, the Amazon voucher itself must meet the criteria of section 2(1) no. 10 ZAG. If the Company issues a voucher that can be redeemed for an Amazon voucher, the Court should have examined whether the Amazon voucher falls within the terms “goods and services”.
Finally, the Fiscal Court adopts – without further explanation – an interpretation of the BMF set out in paragraph 24(f) of the BMF Circular. The statements made in the BMF Circular go beyond the wording, legislative history, systematic context and purpose of section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG. From a legal practitioner’s perspective, it would have been desirable for the Fiscal Court to engage with the BMF’s position by interpreting section 8(1), sentence 3 EStG itself.
Appeal filed with the BFH and practical implications
In light of the points discussed in the preceding section, the appeal proceedings before the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH IV R 3/26) will be particularly interesting to follow.
Companies that provide their employees with vouchers as benefits in kind should review whether those vouchers meet the statutory requirements for classification as benefits in kind.
If your company is also assessed for wage tax in connection with the acquisition and provision of a universal voucher, it may lodge an objection against the assessment and request that the proceedings be suspended pursuant to section 363 of the German Fiscal Code (Abgabenordnung – “AO”), with reference to the proceedings currently pending before the BFH.
In order to avoid payment of the wage tax while the objection is pending, an application for suspension of enforcement (section 361 AO) must also be made. It should be noted that, if the tax subsequently becomes payable, interest at a rate of 6% per annum will accrue on the amount for which enforcement was suspended.
If the tax authorities take the view that a voucher does not meet the requirements for classification as a benefit in kind, the company should examine whether the legal arrangements in place correspond to those described in the Fiscal Court’s judgment or whether differences in the underlying facts may in themselves justify pursuing separate proceedings.
