Boss allegedly did not know the balance of his company

For his work on stage, as a “coach”, he had to have his head clear of accounting in his company and everything that goes with it, said a 42-year-old from the Main-Spessart district before the jury in Würzburg, who was accused of tax evasion. A partner was responsible for business accounts, contracts, incoming mail and the tax office. He never saw a bank statement.

The motivational speaker said in court that he had no idea about bookkeeping and therefore did not know that for the years 2015 to 2017 almost 290,000 euros for income, sales and trade tax were due but not paid. No tax returns at all had been submitted to the tax office. The court of lay judges sentenced the then head of the company to a suspended sentence of one year and two months and a fine of 3,000 euros. The probation requirements also include that he “does his best” to pay his debts to the tax office, with at least 150 euros a month.

Everything regulated by acclamation

The coaching company ran in the name of the accused, who claims to have been of the opinion that at the time the three of them were involved in a “civil law company”, in which a partner was responsible for the entire “office area” including tax advisors and Tax office was responsible. This partnership is never recorded in writing, but, like much else in the company, has been regulated by acclamation or on the phone.

“It’s strange,” said Judge Jürgen Weber, that there is nothing in writing about all important processes. The defender said: In the circles, a lot only happens through mutual trust. After an anonymous tip, the tax investigators were interested in the coaching company.

No regular salary

The defendant did not receive a regular salary, he said, but instead received a credit card when he needed money, even though the account was in his name. When he wanted a Porsche in between, it was found for him. “Not understandable,” said the judge, saying that the defendant never wanted to know how his company was doing financially. The ex-partner did not provide any information as a witness on the crucial questions after he was instructed that he did not have to incriminate himself. The court did not relieve him of the fact that the defendant did not want to have thought of paying taxes at all.

He allegedly passed mail addressed to him from the tax office unopened to the partner and he also claims to have assumed that the tax office regularly fetches what it thinks is right. The defendant assured the court: “I would not do it again like this. I understand that you do not understand what I was thinking at the time”. His defense lawyer had described it differently: the tax cut was naive and frivolous.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.