Is the tax consultant's claim valid and legitimate?
March 6, 2020 | 50,00 EUR | answered by Rechtsanwältin Jasmi Jasmin Pesla
In August 2019, we changed our tax consultancy firm: from Mr. StB M to StB S. There is a friend (Mrs. G) working there, who took over the firm "StB S" on January 1, 2020.
I had agreed on flat-rate conditions for the accounting with this friend over the phone. She informed me that it would not be more expensive than what I had been paying at StB M.
According to the invoice from the predecessor, StB M., the accounting for 2018 was 75% completed (see invoice in the attachment).
We received invoices 1933 and 1931 from StB S on December 3, 2019. On December 16, 2020, we submitted a objection to the invoice via email and received a response stating that the agreed conditions could not be met.
We only partially settled invoices 1931 and 1933 and rejected payment of the remaining amounts.
On January 2, 2020, we explained our point of view via email. (see attachment) On January 3, 2020, we received a response to our email. (see attachment)
On February 21, 2020, we received a letter of demand with a threat of legal action. The deadline expires on March 10, 2020.
Mrs. G took over the tax consultancy firm from Stb S on January 1, 2020 (See letter dated December 12, 2019).
We are surprised that StB S continues to use his letterhead, even though his firm no longer exists.
Our questions:
1) Is the claim from StB S justified, even though he handed over the firm to Mrs. G for reasons of age on January 1, 2020?
2) Shouldn't the new firm owner (Mrs. G) assert the claim against us by sending us a reminder/payment request?
3) Is our argumentation in line with our letters from December 16, 2019 and January 2/3, 2020?
Dear questioner,
Thank you for your inquiry in the legal field.
I am Ms. lawyer Jasmin Pesla and
I would like to answer your question as follows:
First of all, you are right in principle:
Something different was agreed verbally than what was followed as the billing amount. Even a verbally concluded contract is valid in this case, and it represents a major breach of trust on the part of the law firm towards a tax consultancy firm that they do not adhere to their commitment. This is unacceptable.
However, the issue of burden of proof arises as follows:
Basically, only the provision of the service by the law firm needs to be proven. In the absence of any other agreement, it will not be possible to rely on an hourly rate, but the tax consultancy will have billed according to the statutory fees. Then only this calculation must be arithmetically correct. Then the alleged claim for payment will also be successful in court, as you cannot prove the telephone conversation.
However, it is of course a prerequisite that a correct invoice with tax or tax identification number, description of the activity, etc. is received.
Regarding the takeover (I do not see any attachment), the old law firm owner can still be named by name in the letterhead. This is permissible and it is up to the parties how long the name will still be listed on the letterhead. However, it should be clear that the person has "resigned" or that a change of ownership has taken place. This is usually done by adding "until the date".
If there has been a transfer of the business, the new owner must of course issue a corresponding invoice, as the old debts also pass to them. In this respect, the letterhead needs to be examined more closely. You can complain about this. But you can also leave it as it is, and it is of course not acceptable to continue using the old name and signing it yourself: The owner of the claim would no longer be clear. Ultimately, it would be the old owner of the claim who would have to file a lawsuit, but the claim has been transferred. If you wish, just leave it as it is and wait to see if these errors are corrected or not. If not, then you can contest it later. If the errors are corrected, that would be the case. However, the effective entry into default would then be questionable, because without a correct invoice, you cannot be in default. You could then of course refuse to pay such alleged default costs.
I hope I could help you further.
Best regards,
Lawyer Jasmin Pesla
Neuhaus am Rennweg
Thuringia
working across regions
