BStBK rejects split Sunday bonus base in 2027 income-tax reform draft

Ahead of the public Finanzausschuss hearing, the Bundessteuerberaterkammer comments on the Regierungsentwurf for an Einkommensteuerreformgesetz 2027Bstbk (Drucksache 507/26) in Stellungnahme 49/2026 of 28 October 2026. The chamber warns that income tax is also the business tax of Personenunternehmen, that profits already skimmed by almost half leave little room for innovation, growth and jobs, and that resident firms face growing competitive disadvantages; the coalition promise of Steuervereinfachung durch Typisierungen, Vereinfachungen und Pauschalierungen shows in the draft, apart from the higher Arbeitnehmer-Pauschbetrag, too little, while Sunday, holiday and night bonuses add new complexity.

The draft raises the maximum Grundlohn for tax-favoured Sunday and holiday bonuses in § 3b(2)(1) Einkommensteuer-Entwurf (EStG-E) from 50 Euro to 75 EuroBstbkBstbk from Veranlagungszeitraum 2027Bstbk to reflect wage growth and make burdensome hours more attractive, while night-work bonuses stay at 50 EuroBstbk. The chamber sees no reason stated in the Begründung or the Koalitionsausschuss results of 2 July 2026 for treating nights differently and calls for a uniform limit across Sunday, holiday and night workBstbk. It has long demanded harmonised tax and contribution thresholds with contribution freedom tied to the § 3b tax caps, which would be systematic, simpler and safer for payroll, and it firmly rejects the planned social-security rule in § 1(2)(1) Sozialversicherungsentgeltverordnung-Entwurf (SvEV-E)Bstbk.

That rule would free collectively agreed Sunday and holiday bonuses up to the tax cap from contributionsBstbk while leaving non-collectively agreed Sunday and holiday bonuses and all night bonuses contribution-free only on a 25 Euro hourly baseBstbk. The chamber calls the split unjustified and unworkable: payroll would have to separate Sunday, holiday and night workBstbk and, for Sunday and holiday work, additionally verify and document whether a relevant Tarifvertrag applies to the employment relationshipBstbk, with contractual reference to individual tariff clauses expressly insufficient and company agreements unclear. The resulting error and liability exposure in wage-tax and social-security audits contradicts simple, legally certain payroll. The chamber therefore backs the Bundesrat requestBstbk of 16 October 2026 (Drs. 507/26 Beschluss) to examine dropping the 50 Euro to 75 Euro base rise and instead moderately raising the § 3b bonus rates of 50 percent and 125 percentBstbk, which would avoid new boundary problems.

The planned higher Arbeitnehmer-Pauschbetrag in § 9a(1)(1)(a) EStG-E relieves employees and can reduce assessments, which the chamber welcomes, but a far larger simplification would merge Arbeitnehmer-Pauschbetrag, Entfernungspauschale and Homeoffice-Pauschale into one Arbeitstagepauschale as proposed by the BMF Expertenkommission Bürgernahe Einkommensteuer. The coalition-agreed review of those expert proposals should be taken up promptly. On the § 32a(1) EStG-E tariff the chamber as a rule stays silent on politics, but it has always backed removing cold progression and notes the package this time does not fully remove itBstbk; relief for small and middle incomes is partly funded by higher upper rates, with an earlier 45 percent Reichensteuersatz and a new 47 percent rateBstbk from 280,000 Euro of taxable incomeBstbk hitting successful Mittelstand entrepreneurs who expect relief on energy and labour costs, not counter-financing. If tariff action is impossible, at least the announced structural business-tax improvements for the § 1a Körperschaftsteuergesetz option model and the § 34a EStG retention relief must come promptlyBstbk, since person-company taxation already ranks among the highest worldwide. The guide invokes §§ 3b, 9a and 32a EStG-E and § 1 SvEV-E across the sections above.