Cum-Exskandal: Schlappe for Warburg Bank in the dispute over millions

Cum-Exskandal: Schlappe for Warburg Bank in the dispute over millions

Cum-ex scandal
Schlappe for Warburg Bank in the dispute over millions of claims






For years, the Hamburger Warburg Bank, who was enthusiastic about the Cum-Ex scandal, has been trying to get 155 million euros back from the tax administration. Now there is a highest judge.

In the dispute over tax claims in the millions of millions, Warburg Bank, who was entangled in the Cum-Ex scandal, had to accept a legal defeat. The Federal Finance Court in Munich rejected a complaint by the Warburg Group as unfounded that a decision by the Hamburg Finance Court from November 2023 was not approved for revision (decision VIII B 17/24).



The Hamburg judges had declared the tax claims of the Treasury in the amount of 155 million euros against the bank (AZ: 6 K 228/20).

In CUM-Ex Caums, stock traders dealt with (“Cum”) and without (“ex”) distribution claims between several participants back and forth. In the end, the tax authorities were no longer clear to whom the papers belonged. Financial offices reimbursed capital income taxes that had not been paid at all. This resulted in a billion dollar damage to the German state.


Warburg group claimed 155 million euros




The tax administration had reclaimed the sum for the years 2007 to 2011, among other things, because of the reimbursement of never paid capital income taxes due to the reimbursement of never paid.


The bank had taken the view that the claims were exported. Nevertheless, she had paid the 155 million euros in 2020 under reservations, but has tried to get the sum back on a legal path since then.


Warburg Bank’s tax treatment has also been concerned with politics in recent years. A parliamentary committee of inquiry of the Hamburg Citizenship had then checked a possible influence on the tax case of leading Hamburg SPD politicians. The background was three meetings by Warburg shareholders Christian Olearius and Max Warburg with the then mayor and later Chancellor Olaf Scholz in 2016 and 2017.

A proof of influence was not provided until the end of the PUA at the beginning of this year. Scholz, who claims that he cannot remember the talks with the bankers, had always rejected corresponding allegations.

dpa

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Latest Posts