Germany grants immunity for tax evasion — on the strictest conditions on this site. § 371 of the Fiscal Code demands correction of all non-time-barred tax offences of one tax type, covering at minimum the last ten calendar years. A partial disclosure — knowingly omitting years, accounts or wallets — does not work: it hands the authority a confession and the discloser nothing. Since the 2015 tightening, the Selbstanzeige is not a form. It is a project.
The three pillars
Completeness. All incorrect statements corrected, all years, all sources of one tax type — for crypto: every exchange, every wallet, all within-period disposal gains, all staking and lending receipts, recomputed with a method-consistent, wallet-aware basis record. Determining the exact correction period is one of the points where disclosures fail in practice.
Timeliness. The blocking grounds of § 371(2) end the window: announcement of an audit order, an official appearing for an audit, announcement that criminal or administrative-fine proceedings have been opened — and discovery of the offence, where the offender had to reckon with it. Each blocks the affected offence; drawing the boundary is fine legal work.
Payment. §371(3) links relief to timely payment of the evaded tax and the statutory interest amounts identified by the provision. The exact amounts and deadlines should be computed from the operative assessment facts before any filing.
The €25,000 threshold and the surcharge
Where the evaded tax exceeds €25,000 per offence, classic immunity is blocked. What remains is § 398a: prosecution is waived if, on top of tax and interest, an additional amount is paid — 10 percent of the evaded tax up to €100,000, 15 percent above that to €1 million, 20 percent beyond. The same architecture as Austria's tactician surcharge, but pegged to the size of the amount rather than to an audit announcement: in Germany, the scale of the error costs — not just the timing.
Completeness, discovery and payment are statutory conditions, not checklist formalities. A partial or badly sequenced filing can change the legal position rather than cure it.
If it was only a mistake: § 153
§153 creates a duty to notify and correct when a taxpayer later recognises that a submitted declaration was incorrect or incomplete and may have understated tax. It is not the same legal mechanism as a §371 self-disclosure. Whether the facts involve a correction duty, tax evasion or another category is a legal classification question; this page does not make that determination for the reader.
§153, §371 and §398a answer different questions
| Provision | Core function | Critical release question |
|---|---|---|
| §153 AO | Duty to notify/correct a declaration later recognised as incorrect or incomplete where tax may be understated. | What did the taxpayer know, when, and what classification follows from the facts? |
| §371 AO | Statutory self-disclosure route for tax evasion, subject to completeness, blocking grounds and payment conditions. | Is the disclosure complete across the required tax type/time scope, and has a blocking ground already arisen? |
| §398a AO | Potential non-prosecution route in specified cases where §371 relief is blocked by §371(2) no. 3 or 4, with tax/interest and an additional payment. | Does §398a actually apply to the blocking ground and amount in this case? |
The additional payment is tiered by the evaded-tax amount
| Evaded-tax amount | Additional amount under §398a(1)(2) |
|---|---|
| Up to €100,000 | 10% |
| Above €100,000 and up to €1,000,000 | 15% |
| Above €1,000,000 | 20% |
These percentages do not mean every error above €25,000 can be “bought out.” §398a only operates within its statutory conditions, and the relevant offence/blocking-ground analysis must be reviewed.
The route can change with one fact
- Whether the original conduct was intentional, careless or another category.
- Whether an audit order, investigation notice, official appearance or discovery condition in §371(2) has arisen.
- Whether all offences of the relevant tax type within the statutory scope are completely corrected.
- The evaded-tax amount per offence and whether §398a conditions are available.
The sequence
- First the threshold question: § 153 or § 371. With advice, documented — it determines the effort, cost and risk of the entire route.
- Reconstruct the full statutory period with a method-consistent, wallet-aware basis record. Holding periods, threshold edges and receipts must reconcile. BMF guidance treats individual identification as primary and permits FIFO as a simplification where identification is not possible.
- Have the blocking grounds assessed professionally. Whether discovery must be assumed — especially in the DAC8 era — is not self-assessment.
- Compute payment including surcharge before the filing leaves the house. The €25,000 threshold applies per offence; the total of tax, interest and any surcharge must stand ready.
- Have the filing sequence and wording reviewed before submission. This is a criminal-tax-risk route; the page is designed to prepare facts for qualified counsel, not to supply a DIY filing script.
Whether a self-disclosure works turns on circumstances this page does not know. It frames the decision; it does not make it, and reading it creates no professional relationship.