(2022)
Costs for installing a lift
Expenditure for the installation of a lift in one's own home has not previously been recognised as an extraordinary burden. The same applies to a lift tower added to an existing building. The reasoning was that such construction work is also beneficial for non-disabled people and therefore increases the value of the building.
However, according to recent BFH case law, the question of value and market advantage no longer plays a significant role (BFH ruling of 22.10.2009, BStBl. 2010 II p. 280; BFH ruling of 24.2.2011, BStBl. 2011 II p. 1012).
Recently, the Cologne Finance Court recognised the costs for the installation of a lift amounting to 65.000 Euro as extraordinary expenses because the installation of a cheaper stair lift was not technically possible (FG Cologne of 27.8.2014, 14 K 2517/12).
Expenditure for medically indicated measures is to be considered as extraordinary expenses without the need for an individual examination of the necessity of the reason and the amount. Furthermore, it should be noted that not only the medically necessary minimum provision is required, but any diagnostic or therapeutic procedure that is sufficiently justified.
This medical assessment must be followed in the tax evaluation, unless there is an obvious disproportion between the required and the actual expenditure. Even with costs of 65.000 Euro for a lift, there is no obvious disproportion between the required and the actual expenditure. These costs are reasonable. This is particularly the case if the installation of a cheaper stair lift was not technically possible.
The Federal Fiscal Court had already clarified that the lift is a "medical aid in the strict sense" that is purchased exclusively by sick or disabled people to alleviate their suffering. For such items, no medical certificate needs to be obtained before purchase, as the strict requirements of § 64 para. 1 no. 2e EStDV do not apply (BFH ruling of 6.2.2014, VI R 61/12).
SteuerGo: However, the full deduction in the year of expenditure may be ineffective if the extraordinary expenses are higher than the total income from which they are to be deducted. In this case, the tax deductibility does not provide the desired relief effect. But the tax authorities explain: "A distribution over several years is not permitted" (R 33.4 paras. 4 and 5 EStR).
The Federal Fiscal Court has confirmed the strict stance of the tax authorities: Extraordinary expenses can generally be deducted in the year in which they were incurred. High costs for disability-friendly home modifications may not be spread over several years for reasons of equity if they have only a very limited tax effect in the calendar year in which they were incurred (BFH ruling of 12.7.2017, VI R 36/15).
