Tax Fraud: Voluntary Self-Disclosure

1. Comprehensive assistance (full-service) in all stages of the procedure. We take care of all correspondence with authorities and (foreign) banks on your behalf.  
2. If foreign capital assets are involved (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, etc.), we ensure the required documentation is procured safely or is assessed in our Zurich office without ever touching German soil prior to submitting the voluntary self-disclosure.
3. Practical experience from more than 20 years and hundreds of voluntary self-disclosures all over Germany assisted by our tax law specialists and tax advisers.
4. Long-standing practical experience in dealing with the Tax Authority and Tax Investigation Unit due tofour former Tax Officers working in our law firm.
5. Trustful advice from the beginning: Each voluntary self-disclosure will be supervised by a coordinator (tax adviser), who is at the same time your permanent point of contact. Our client will already get to know his coordinator in the initial consultation, as well as a permanent deputy (also tax adviser), who will take care of things if the coordinator is unavailable (four-eyes principle). You will always have several competent points of contact for your questions and will be kept up to date about your matter at all times.
6. Experienced and reliable staff members for the assessment of your banking documentation (tax advisers and former bank employees). Comprehensive experience in assessing and analysing complex banking documentation as well as valuation for taxation purposes of all types of securities (see:interview by our tax adviser Mr Benöhr in FOCUS). We will certainly scrutinise your banking documentation for any representation expenditure (bank fees, transaction costs) and (foreign) taxes to be credited (interest withholding tax, tax at source, input tax, etc.) which may reduce your taxload.  
7. We provide advice in our Cologne (near central station) and Zurich offices (Paradeplatz) as well as Germany-wide. We also frequently accompany our clients in their appointments with foreign banks.
8. Up-to-date expert knowledge by speaking at seminars and publications in periodicals and commentaries on all new developments pertaining to voluntary self-disclosures.  
9. Awards:  Our law firm was awarded “Top-tier law firm for “criminal tax law” and “representation to the Tax Authority” by FOCUS for 2014 and 2015. In addition, the JUVE-commission recommends our firm as one of very few German law firms for the area of “criminal tax law”.  
10. Our tax law specialists have the necessary expert knowledge to deal with special cases: inheritance law, gift law, asset succession, commercial law.  
11. Experienced team for the processing of voluntary self-disclosures, comprising 14 attorneys and tax law specialists, 6 tax advisers (4 of them are former officers of the Tax Authority, one of them a former Division Manager at Tax Investigations) as well as banking, business and tax experts assisting in the analysis and investigative efforts.

In the following, we will provide detailed information on the requirements for a voluntary self-disclosure, as set out in § 371 of the Tax Act (Abgabenordnung, AO). The following conditions must be met in order to be exempt from prosecution by the submission of a voluntary self-disclosure:  

1. The amended declaration of tax bases must be complete. This obligation to completeness refers to the respective type of tax (e.g. income tax, sales tax) and applies for all tax periods which are not time-barred, but at least the preceding ten years. This new minimum period applies to voluntary self-disclosures made after 31.12.2014.
2. The offence must not have been detected yet, or, if the offence has been detected, this must not have been foreseeable for the affected taxpayer.
3. An audit notice for a field audit (e.g. company tax audit) must not have been issued for the tax periods which are not time-barred under criminal law .  Relief has been provided from 1.1.2015 onwards: An audit notice will only estop a voluntary self-disclosure for the tax periods specified in the notice.
4. A sales tax review or a payroll tax review must not have commenced. Otherwise, voluntary self-disclosures for sales tax or payroll tax are estopped.
5. Further, no criminal tax proceedings must have been announced for the tax periods not time-barred under criminal law for the respective type of tax.
6. The amount of taxes withheld must not exceed EUR 25,000 per offence (while jurisprudence has yet to clarify whether the offence in this sense corresponds to the assessment period). If this threshold has been exceeded, or the case is classified as a particularly serious tax fraud under § 370 Sec 3 lit 2 NO 2-5 AO, a voluntary self-disclosure will only be valid, if an additional payment of a staggered percentile of the taxes withheld is paid, as set out in § 398a AO. The additional payment will however not apply, if the threshold of EUR 25,000 has been exceeded but sales tax advance declarations or payroll tax advance declarations are concerned. This so-called penalty surcharge is staggered from 10% to 20% and must be distinguished from the interest on taxes withheld, which is set at 6% p.a. The affected taxpayer may “ransom” himself from prosecution by paying this penalty surcharge. It then presents an estoppel for criminal prosecution. Our tax attorneys know from experience, that the penalty surcharge should be seriously considered in cases of gifts, inheritances and sales tax annual declarations. The precise method of calculating the penalty surcharge remains undefined by the legislator and there is also no uniform procedure applied by the investigating authorities. Our tax attorneys calculate the worst-case-outcome (the most expensive outcome) on a case-by-case basis, thereby enabling our client to know what level of liquidity will be required.
7. The taxes withheld plus interest on arrears must be paid in due time in order to secure the validity of a voluntary self-disclosure.

A voluntary self-disclosure which exempts from prosecution is possible in cases of intentional tax fraud as set out in § 370 AO, but nor for other tax offences, such as the handling of profits obtained by tax fraud, as set out in § 374 AO. An unlawful claim for a home ownership grant is not classified tax fraud, but is classified as a general offence of fraud under § 263 StGB. A voluntary self-disclosure which exempts from prosecution is therefore not possible in this case.

Mandatory completeness applies since 28.04.2011. If a voluntary self-disclosure is submitted with the aim of being exempt from prosecution, it must report all tax-relevant, previously undisclosed circumstances concerning one type of tax (tax assessment bases). Beating time therefore becomes impossible. While the Federal High Court allows for an error margin of 5% in the calculation of taxes withheld, this margin does not cover intentional deviations arranged for tactical purposes.

Scope of tax periods to be reported: A minimum period of ten years applies to voluntary self-disclosures from 1.1.2015 onwards.

While the completeness criteria prior to 31.12.204 only required a corrected declaration of all assessment periods not time-barred, tightened rules apply since 1.1.2015: The complete compound period to be reported in a voluntary self-disclosure is now at least ten years, as stipulated in § 371 Sec 1 lit 2 Tax Act (AO). This means, that the scope for correction of declared taxes is at least ten years for a voluntary self-disclosure, even if the oldest years within this period are already time-barred. This may seem contradictory, but it is nevertheless law since 1.1.2015. The exact calculation of the ten year period remains disputed and even the investigative authorities have not yet formed a uniform interpretation. It is currently controversial, if this

• refers to the ten most recent taxation periods or whether the period in which the offences over the last ten years have occurred are referred to
• and the current year is included.

Note by the tax law specialists from Cologne: The golden rule applies here as well: Forewarned is forearmed: We know from our experience, how the minimum number of years can be applied in a way that provides legal certainty. The most secure way should be carved out on a case-by-case basis. This is best clarified in an initial consultation. We also follow current jurisprudence on the issue of compound periods correction in our published articles in periodicals (compare the advice given in respect of pitfalls in practice by our attorney Dirk Beyer in the periodical NWB No. 11/2015, page 769).

Relief for voluntary self-disclosures for sales tax advance notifications and payroll tax advance notifications:

The legislator has provided relief for voluntary self-disclosures for sales tax and payroll tax since 1.1.2015 (this does however not apply to annual sales tax returns):

• Partial voluntary self-disclosures are valid once more.
• A penalty surcharge in the amount of 10 to 20%, as prescribed by § 298 AO, is not applicable if the threshold of EUR 25,000 (in taxes withheld) is exceeded.

Note by the tax attorneys from Cologne: This significantly simplifies voluntary self-disclosures by companies. The new pitfalls created on 1.1.2015 must however be taken into account. When planning a voluntary self-disclosure and not only sales tax but also income tax is concerned, the new minimum period of ten years must be considered, the calculation of which is disputed (see above).

A voluntary self-disclosure will be valid, if the information disclosed enables the Tax Authority to retroactively assess taxes for the entire type of tax concerned (invalidity of a partial self-disclosure) by way of amended tax assessment notices. This applies to years which are not time-barred under criminal law.  

Special note on voluntary self-disclosures in respect of capital income:  

The disclosure must contain precise information about the tax assessment bases, e.g. the undeclared interest income or operational income, broken down by assessment periods. It should further be considered in a voluntary self-disclosure, whether private disposals as defined in § 23 EStG have occurred and if the income from several years might have been paid in a lump-sum in one particular year. In the case of investment funds, it must be assessed, if a penalty tax assessment might me applicable, as provided for by the Investment Control Act. Under this special regulation, taxation may be based on a fictional profit (see our note above in respect of the European High Court having set aside part of this regulation). The creativity of the legislator is astounding.

How can a voluntary self-disclosure be submitted if the required documentation is currently unavailable? 

Our clients are frequently faced with the question, how they can submit a voluntary self-disclosure as soon as possible, despite not having precise figures available, e.g. due to the information being held by a foreign bank and therefore not being available for immediate procurement. This situation frequently arises when, for example, the client is requested by the Tax Authority to provide information in respect of a particular circumstance and a search of premises cannot be excluded (risk of an offence being detected or another estoppel, see below). 

In practice, the two-step-model has proven useful, which is also supported by jurisprudence. This is different to a non-permissible voluntary self-disclosure which consists of a mere announcement as a first step. The permissible two-step model must be distinguished from the non-permissible stepped voluntary self-disclosure. The two-step model already results in a complete voluntary self-disclosure in the first step and can be applied successfully if the necessary expertise is at hand. It requires two steps:

1. In the first step, the tax bases (e.g. capital gains) are estimated for each assessment period included in the compound period mentioned above (mandatory completeness). This estimation must be performed as realistic as possible, based on the recollection of the client, and our tax attorneys will add a certain safety margin. The estimate must be at least as high as the subsequently calculated actual figures, which can only be calculated later. The voluntary self-disclosure would otherwise be invalid due to incompleteness. This means, that the first step of a voluntary self-disclosure must already meet all conditions. Note by the tax law specialist from Cologne: Transmission in the first step should always be by fax, because receipt by the Tax Authority can be documented and the cut-off date is set in stone. The client has an irrevocable expectant right for the validity of his voluntary self-disclosure, if the back taxes and interest are paid in due time at a later date. From this time onwards, he may be unconcerned about bringing documentation from a foreign country into Germany for evaluation by his attorney in preparation of the second step.
2. In the second step, the actual tax bases will be specified in detail, based on the now available documentation. The actual figures will, for example, be derived from the banking documentation procured in the meanwhile. Note by the tax attorney in Cologne: We will ensure that the Tax Authority grants a reasonable time for the provision of the actual figures including supporting documentation. It would be disagreeable, if the Tax Authority were to issue amended tax assessment notices based on the usually greatly inflated figures from the first step. Should this happen, it is recommended to lodge an appeal against the amended tax assessment notices and communicate the efforts being made to procure the documentation (e.g. copy of a letter to the foreign bank). We will certainly take care of this for you and it is part and parcel of the professional handling of voluntary self-disclosures.

Should all tax periods already be reported in the (estimated) voluntary self-disclosure?

All years which form part of the compound period mentioned above, that is at least the last ten years, must be reported in a voluntary self-disclosure due to the mandatory completeness. The exact scope of the compound period can only be established in a consultation. Prior to the new regulation on voluntary self-disclosures becoming law on 1.1.2015, the question was, whether all other years which are not time-barred under tax law must also be reported. This is, because completeness used to only include those years, which were not yet time-barred, and not, as is the case since 1.1.2015, always the last ten years. Note: We would like to refer the reader to the external links in respect of the different statutes of limitations applying to tax law on the one hand and criminal tax law on the other hand. Under current law since 1.1.2015, it is still possible, that years which do not form part of the compound period are not time-barred under criminal law. This can only be clarified in an individual consultation.

The motives for only reporting the years within the compound periods (at least the last ten years) are manifold. It must however be considered, that the Tax Authority will usually issue amended tax assessment notices for older years, as far as they are not time-barred. In the worst case, the Tax Authority will make arbitrary assessments, which will be based on the years for which information has been reported. Note: This schematic transfer of figures from earlier years is not permissible in all cases. As far as capital income is concerned, the development of interest rates must also be considered.

A voluntary self-disclosure must be signed by the taxpayer or his authorised attorney / tax adviser.

No further formal requirements are prescribed for voluntary self-disclosures. They may be submitted in writing, orally, over the phone or placed on record with the Tax Authority. The written form is recommended for the sake of clarity and to establish evidence. Orally made statements, e.g. in a discussion with a case manager, cannot guarantee completeness due to the inherent risk of inaccuracies in oral conversation.Note: An oral statement made to the Tax Authority may however be a last lifeline in certain cases. This is however a different (defence) situation: The damage has already been done, which means that a voluntary self-disclosure is no longer possible and the taxpayer faces the question, whether earlier statements made can be construed to constitute a voluntary self-disclosure. Our tax law specialists assist our clients even in these difficult situations.

Some clients feel an urge to explain their motives for having evaded taxes to the Tax Authority. These kind of deliberations are completely out of place. They are not necessary for the voluntary self-disclosure to be valid and they carry the risk of the Tax Authority drilling further into the question, whether this is in fact a voluntary self-disclosure or rather a mere amended tax declaration. A “lean” voluntary self-disclosure will have a greater chance of being processed without raising any red flags. It must also be pointed out, that the Tax Authority’s internal procedures require voluntary self-disclosures to be forwarded to the Office for Fines and Criminal Matters (Straf- und Bußgeldsachenstelle).  

It is therefore recommended, to draft the voluntary self-disclosure in the same way as an amended tax return (while observing the qualitative requirements applicable to voluntary self-disclosures). Our tax attorneys draft the respective documents with the necessary practical experience and without unnecessarily stirring up things.

Voluntary self-disclosures must be submitted to the local Tax Authority in charge of the matter. If it is submitted to a different authority, such as the police, exemption from prosecution will only be effected, if the voluntary self-disclosure is forwarded to the responsible Tax Authority in time and before any estoppel arises. However, because jurisprudence allows for an estoppel to arise by third parties detecting an offence (rather than detection by the Tax Authority), a police station or customs officers intervening at the border could possibly be such third parties. This must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The option of making a voluntary self-disclosure which exempts from prosecution is excluded in some cases. Exemption from prosecution will therefore not be achieved. There are a number of circumstances giving rise to an estoppel. An estoppel is present, if one of the following circumstances have occurred: 

• the offender, his representative or a beneficiary have been served an audit notice in accordance with § 196 Tax Code (Abgabenordnung), or
• the offender or his representative have been notified of criminal proceedings being commenced, or
• a tax officer has appeared on site for the purpose of conducting a tax audit (the estoppel is limited to the factual and temporal scope of the field audit in this case), or
• a tax officer has appeared on site and has identified himself for the purpose of conducting a sales tax review under § 27b Sales Tax Code or a payroll tax review under § 42g Income Tax Code or a review under another regulation, or
• one of the tax offences had already been (partly) discovered at the time of submitting an amended, corrected or resubmitted tax return and the offender was aware of this or should have been aware if he had acted reasonably (detection of an offence).  

Note by the tax attorney from Cologne: Based on the so-called “infection theory”, it is already detrimental, if one of the mentioned estoppels arises for one single assessment period which is not time-barred under criminal law. This leads to an estoppel for all years of the respective type of tax, which means that a voluntary self-disclosure is precluded for this type of tax.  Relief has however been provided for audit notices from 1.1.2015 (no infection): An estoppel raised upon receipt of an audit notice no longer estopps all years, but only those specified in the audit notice. This presents an opportunity to make a valid partial voluntary self-disclosure while a company tax audit is being conducted. This must however be assessed on a case-by-case basis, because no other estoppels must be present.

Estoppel for a voluntary self-disclosure upon discovery of an offence (Tax-evaders-CD, international reporting)

Note: Tax investigation offices currently claim, that voluntary self-disclosures are estopped for all individuals identified as account holders on one of the so-called “tax-evader-CD’s”. This is inaccurate in our opinion, however jurisprudence is yet to rule on this issue. The discovery of an offence presupposes an objective and a subjective component. In our opinion, the objective component is only established, if the Tax Authority has matched the information contained on a Tax-evader-CD with the individual tax files of the affected taxpayer and has detected deviations. The subjective component additionally requires, that the affected taxpayer should have been aware of the discovery of his offence. A mere report in the media concerning a Tax-evader-CD does not satisfy this criteria. This is, because banks have tens of thousands of clients, and 2,000 clients contained on a tax-CD does not mean there is a high probability of the offence being detected.  

The discovery of an offence may also be estopped by investigations of German Tax Authorities in a foreign country. These are questions to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. The legal bases for the reporting of information between Germany and countries like Switzerland, Luxembourg, Austria and Liechtenstein as well as Singapore, Hong Kong, Panama and Caribbean tax havens like Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands have become more sophisticated and are continuously being expanded (see our page OECD-standard for the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts (AEOI). The authorities granted in respect of group enquiries in a foreign country are also being expanded.

Exemption from prosecution is generally only warranted, if the taxes withheld are repaid by the offender within the period granted by the Tax Authority. Since 1.1.2015, interest on arrears in the amount of 6% p.a. must also be paid in due time.

Note by the tax law specialist from Cologne: The mentioned deadlines are not the regular payment deadlines for taxes as specified on the tax assessment notice, but a separate deadline set by the Office for Fines and Criminal Matters. In most cases, this deadline will not be set automatically. If a deadline is set, it is usually one month or corresponds to the deadline set on the tax assessment notice. An extension will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Jurisprudence allows for an extended deadline of up to six months in particular circumstances. The affected taxpayer has however no entitlement to such an extended deadline, and must therefore ensure the availability of sufficient liquidity for the payment of back taxes.  An invalid voluntary self-disclosure does not exempt from prosecution but is frequently considered a mitigating circumstance in criminal tax proceedings.

This comes as a shock for uninformed taxpayers. After submitting a voluntary self-disclosure, our client usually receives a letter from the Office of Fines and Criminal Matters, notifying him of criminal tax proceedings being commenced in respect of the disclosed tax periods. This letter must be understood as a bureaucratic act, it simply serves the purpose of assigning a case number. The criminal proceedings will be terminated as soon as the voluntary self-disclosure has been assessed by the Tax Authority. This letter is standard procedure and does not contain information as to whether the voluntary self-disclosure will be assessed as valid or otherwise.

If a tax evasion is committed by grossly negligent conduct, this is called a misdemeanour tax evasion as set out in § 378 Tax Code (AO). This is not an offence but only a misdemeanour. The legislator has provided for eased conditions in respect of such a voluntary self-disclosure that will exempt from a fine. The benefits are:

• In the case of a negligent tax evasion, a partial voluntary self-disclosure will be effective, as used to be the case.
• There is only one possible estoppel: A voluntary self-disclosure for tax evasion by negligence is estopped by the announcement of criminal proceedings being commenced.
• There is also no interest on arrears payable and the 5% surcharge as set out in § 398a AO is waived.  

Note by the tax attorney: It might therefore be helpful to submit a voluntary self-disclosure during a company tax audit, if the offence can be interpreted as a negligent tax evasion. A fine might possibly be avoided this way. If a voluntary self-disclosure is not an option, because it is precluded by an estoppel, it should always be examined whether there is an opportunity to submit a voluntary self-disclosure for negligent tax evasion. This might be the silver bullet, if the circumstances allow for classification as a negligent tax evasion. This reasoning frequently requires significant substantiation, because a distinction between intentional conduct and grossly negligent conduct has not been assessed in a uniform way by jurisprudence, and the authorities often suggest wilful intent. This means, that this option frequently only becomes available in hindsight, if the validity of a voluntary self-disclosure is disputed. Our law firm has commented on this situation in the professional literature (article: Rescuing failed voluntary self-disclosures, Ingo Heuel, attorney and tax adviser, and Dirk Beyer, attorney, AO-StB 2013, page 140).

If it is not clear, whether wilful intent might be the case (e.g. conditional intent), a voluntary self-disclosure should only be submitted after obtaining comprehensive advice.

A voluntary self-disclosure exempts from prosecution, but only in respect of the tax fraud committed. If another offence was committed in conjunction with the tax fraud, e.g. document forgery, the affected taxpayer will still be liable for prosecution of that offence. Document forgery is an offence frequently committed in conjunction with tax offences, e.g. by making up bogus invoices.

In addition to the payment of back taxes, interest on the taxes withheld is payable in the amount of 6% p.a. If the unpaid taxes have been in arrears for more than ten years, this means at least 60% interest will be payable for this tax year.   The interest must therefore be included in the liquidity considerations, in order to avoid a nasty surprise.

Note: In the case of a liquidity bottleneck, a payment arrangement should be entered into with the Tax Authority. A tax attorney can assess, which tax years and types of taxes should be paid as a priority.

The new regulations apply to all voluntary self-disclosures submitted after 31.12.2014. Voluntary self-disclosures submitted prior to 1.1.2015 are protected by grandfathering. A voluntary self-disclosure valid under the old law can certainly not be rendered invalid by the tightened new regulations.

The new regulations not only tighten the conditions, but also provide for relief, e.g. in respect of advance-declarations for sales tax and payroll tax (see point 3). Audit notices only estop voluntary self-disclosures for the tax periods and tax types specified in the audit notice. The following question has yet to be clarified by jurisprudence: Can a client benefit of the new regulations, if his voluntary self-disclosure was submitted before 1.1.2015, but the validity of the same will not be assessed until after 31.12.2014 ? The question is: Which version of the law will yield a “cheaper” result. The legislator has left this question unanswered.

Example: U has submitted a voluntary self-disclosure in respect of his income tax for 2008 to 2012 on 20.12.2014. He was notified of a tax audit on 15.12.2014 for 2010 to 2012 in respect of income taxes. Under the old law prior to 1.1.2015, a voluntary self-disclosure was estopped by the audit notice for all years of income tax (so-called infection theory). The public prosecutor’s office assesses the voluntary self-disclosure in March 2015. Does the authority have to consider the fact, that the regulations have provided relief from 1.1.2015 onwards and the estoppel now only applies to the years specified in the audit notice (§ 371 Sec 2 lit 1 No 1a and lit 2 AO) ? This would mean that the audit notice is not an estoppel for the years 2008 and 2009.

Solution: In our opinion, there are solid grounds for the new, less stringent regulation to apply in U’s case. The coalition government (CDU/CSU/SPD) also assumes, that the respective more beneficial regulation applies for the assessment of a voluntary self-disclosure submitted prior to 1.1.2015 taking place after 31.12.2014 (as stated in a report by the fiscal committee dated 3.12.2014, Bundestag-printed matter 18/3439; and also stated in the directive by the Minister of Finances for Northrhine-Westphalia on 9.2.2015). The interpretation of the law by the Finance Minister of NRW is however not legally binding for the justice authorities, being the public prosecutor’s office and the criminal courts, and it is irrelevant in other federal states. Jurisprudence in this respect remains to be seen. We certainly defend our clients in these matters.

If a voluntary self-disclosure is invalid, e.g. due to incompleteness, this will usually be considered as a mitigating circumstance in criminal proceedings. A legally secure way of finalizing the remaining criminal aspects must still be identified.

Example: A client submits a voluntary self-disclosure, but is unable or unwilling to pay the penalty surcharge as set out in § 398a Tax Code (AO) (see point 1).

In such a case, our tax attorneys will assess, if the criminal proceedings may possibly be terminated against payment of a fine as set out in § 153a StPO. We will then negotiate this issue with the investigative authorities. A termination under § 153a StPO will result in a so-called discontinuance and thereby terminate the criminal proceedings. In certain circumstances, this solution may be cheaper than the payment of a penalty surcharge in the amount of 10% to 20%, as stipulated in § 398a AO. In addition, the voluntary self-disclosure will not result in a discontinuation of the proceedings, which means that the investigative authority may reopen the proceedings at a later time.

Our partners and tax law attorneys/tax advisers follow the changes in the area of voluntary self-disclosures. Our clients stand to benefit. We present a selection of current expert contributions aimed at facilitating a better understanding:

• Voluntary self-disclosures from 1.1.2015 - Pitfalls in practice, Dirk Beyer, attorney, NWB No. 11/2015, page 769
• Rescue of failed voluntary self-disclosures, Ingo Heuel, attorney and tax adviser, and Dirk Beyer, attorney, AO-StB 2013, page 140
• Missing deadlines for income tax - a tax trap? Ingo Heuel, attorney and tax adviser, and Dirk Beyer, attorney, AO-StB 2014, page 279
• The Hoeness-case : Criminal Tax Law FAQ’s, Ingo Heuel, attorney and tax adviser, AO-StB 2014, page 119
• Mitigation of penalization in the case of invalid voluntary self-disclosures (so-called Honess-judgement), Dirk Beyer, attorney, NWB No. 49/2014, page 3608
• Questioning of taxpayers who have submitted a voluntary self-disclosure as witnesses in cases against bank employees? Dirk Beyer, attorney, NWB No. 51/2014, page 3878
• Supporting arguments in respect of the discovery of an offence as stipulated in § 371 Sec 2 No 2 AO in the case of Tax-evaders-CD's, Dirk Beyer, attorney, AO-StB 2014, page 186