Keeping a Valid Mileage Logbook

In a [recent judgment of June 2021 (case reference 9 K 276/19)](https://www.rechtsprechung.niedersachsen.de/jportal/portal/page/bsndprod.psml?doc.id=STRE202175125&st=null&showdoccase=1), the Lower Saxony Tax Court addressed minor deficiencies and inaccuracies in mileage logbooks. Background: The private use of a company vehicle is ordinarily taxed either on a flat-rate basis under the 1% rule or by reference to a mileage logbook. Keeping a logbook is often significantly more advantageous — particularly for an expensive company car or where private use is very limited. The tax authorities are of course well aware of this and therefore impose strict requirements on the logbook, including:

• the logbook must be kept promptly and in a closed, tamper-evident form
• every individual journey must be recorded, including the kilometres driven and the total odometer reading
• for business journeys, the clients or business contacts visited must be listed

Even the smallest deficiencies and inaccuracies in the keeping of the logbook can lead to its rejection, which frequently results in substantial additional tax payments. The Lower Saxony Tax Court has now explicitly addressed this issue in its decision. The key finding is as follows: minor deficiencies (in the case in dispute, for example, abbreviations used for clients and place names, and missing place details where the driver stayed overnight at a hotel) do not lead to rejection, provided the entries are plausible in their entirety and there is still sufficient assurance of the completeness and accuracy of the information. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect the tax office to establish missing details regarding hotel stays from available travel expense records, provided these are isolated cases. Conclusion of the Tax Court: The requirements for a mileage logbook must not be applied too rigidly, so that the rebuttable statutory presumption underlying the 1% rule does not become an irrebuttable one in practice. Particularly in view of the strongly schematic nature of the 1% rule, this would not be justifiable on constitutional grounds — as it risks excessive taxation.