Sintesi

The Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a chamber, did not admit the constitutional complaint in a case concerning child benefit for an adult child whose vocational training had been interrupted because of the care of his or her own children. The decision was issued without reasons. The prior proceedings included a finance court judgment and subsequent Federal Fiscal Court decisions.

Regest

§ 93d Abs. 1 S. 3 BVerfGG; non-admission of a constitutional complaint by chamber order without reasons. Where a complaint does not satisfy the requirements for acceptance for decision, the Chamber may refuse admission without further reasoning; the substantive fiscal-law question regarding child benefit under § 32 Abs. 4 S. 1 Nr. 2 Buchst. a EStG remains unaddressed.

Testo completo

BVerfG — 2 BvR 1395/10, Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung

Entscheidungsdatum: 2012-04-13

Aktenzeichen: 2 BvR 1395/10

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2012:rk20120413.2bvr139510

Dokumenttyp: Kammerbeschluss ohne Begründung

Normen: GG, § 93d Abs 1 S 3 BVerfGG, § 32 Abs 4 S 1 Nr 2 Buchst a EStG 1997, § 32 Abs 4 S 1 Nr 2 Buchst a EStG 2002

Vorinstanz: vorgehend BFH, 25. März 2010, Az: III S 5/10, Beschlussvorgehend BFH, 24. September 2009, Az: III R 79/06, Urteilvorgehend Finanzgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, 31. Mai 2005, Az: 4 K 535/02, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 2. Senat 2. Kammer

Titelzeile

Nichtannahmebeschluss ohne Begründung: Kindergeld - Keine Berücksichtigung eines volljährigen Kindes bei Unterbrechung der Berufsausbildung zur Betreuung eigener Kinder

Parole chiave

child benefitadult childvocational traininginterruption of trainingcare of own childrenconstitutional complaintinadmissibility