BFH: no derived Kindergeld for unmarried partner; Elterngeld counts

An economically inactive Union citizen living with her unmarried partner cannot derive a resource-independent Kindergeld right from himBundesfinanzhof, but parental benefits count toward her own sufficient resourcesBundesfinanzhof. In III R 8/24 of 9 July 2026 the III Senate of the Bundesfinanzhof set aside the Sächsisches Finanzgericht judgmentBundesfinanzhof of 6 September 2023 (8 K 148/23 (Kg)) and remanded the caseBundesfinanzhof of a Czech mother in Germany with her Czech partner, the father of their joint child K born in 2021, since 2020. The Familienkasse had refused Kindergeld for KBundesfinanzhof for February 2022 to January 2023; the mother drew 150 Euro monthly Elterngeld after K's birthBundesfinanzhof and the files indicated benefits under Book Two of the Social Code.

The partner route fails on status. Kindergeld after the first three months depends on free movement under § 2 Abs. 2 or 3 Freizügigkeitsgesetz/EU (§ 62 Abs. 1a Satz 3 Einkommensteuergesetz)Bundesfinanzhof. The rule for accompanying family members (§ 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 6 with §§ 1, 3 FreizügG/EU) covers Familienangehörige under Art. 2 No. 2 of Directive 2004/38/ECBundesfinanzhof, not other nahestehende Personen under § 1 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 Buchst. c and § 3a FreizügG/EUBundesfinanzhof. The claimant merely cohabited without marriage or kinshipBundesfinanzhof. Section 3a is not referenced in § 62 Abs. 1a Satz 3 at allBundesfinanzhof and was unmet in factBundesfinanzhof, needing a granted residence right on application plus secured livelihoodBundesfinanzhof. Neither child K nor the older child X transmitted a resource-independent rightBundesfinanzhof: K at most met Nr. 6 himself, and a parental residence derived from a school-going child under Art. 10 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 failsBundesfinanzhof because no economic activity by the claimant was established or pleadedBundesfinanzhof.

The residence bar itself stands. Conditioning family benefits on lawful residence follows settled case lawBundesfinanzhof, and the indirect discrimination is justified to protect social-system financingBundesfinanzhof. Under § 62 Abs. 1a Satz 4 EStG the Familienkasse conducts that examination in its own competenceBundesfinanzhof, but only where justified doubt exists rather than systematicallyBundesfinanzhof, as Art. 14(2) subpara. 2 of the Directive requires. No Luxembourg reference was needed — acte éclairé — and Art. 3(1) Grundgesetz is unbreached, since Germans always hold residence.

Elterngeld countsBundesfinanzhof as means. Parental allowance and advance maintenance are social securityBundesfinanzhof, not SozialhilfeBundesfinanzhof, hence existenzsichernde Mittel under § 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 5 with § 4 FreizügG/EUBundesfinanzhof. No demands are placed on the origin of resourcesBundesfinanzhof, but they must be available to the Union citizenBundesfinanzhof — partner maintenance including a § 1615l Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch claim where actually paid non-trivially over time, even ongoing free accommodationBundesfinanzhof. No fixed amount may be setBundesfinanzhof; the social-assistance threshold or minimum pension sufficesBundesfinanzhof, drawing assistance is only an indicationBundesfinanzhof, and only unreasonable use ends the rightBundesfinanzhof, allowing temporary hardshipBundesfinanzhof.

The remand follows because the Finanzgericht judged means on 150 Euro aloneBundesfinanzhof, with no findings on actual partner supportBundesfinanzhof — records suggest employment since 15 January 2018 with later possible sick leave — nor on the amount, duration, temporariness or unreasonableness of Book Two benefitsBundesfinanzhof; a global file reference cannot substitute findingsBundesfinanzhof. It must also clarify any designation of the father as priority beneficiaryBundesfinanzhof, after the Familienkasse fixed Kindergeld for him from December 2022 mid-appeal without joining her.

Advisers should stop pleading partner-derived rights for unmarried companions and build the record: Elterngeld, actually paid partner support, benefit duration, any illness gap, and the beneficiary designationBundesfinanzhof.

The result follows from § 62 Abs. 1a EStG with §§ 2, 3a and 4 FreizügG/EU and § 1615l BGB, read against Art. 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, Arts. 7, 8, 14 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC and Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG.