Simple modification against the previously amended decision.
The income tax return for 2018 was issued on 04.10.2019. Subsequently, an amendment request was submitted according to § 172 AO. On 14.11.2019, this amendment request was partially granted, and the rest of the process was put on hold, resulting in a corrected decision on 14.11.2019.
On 14.01.2021, a second correction decision was issued, where some items were accepted, but all expenses were not. Consequently, a second amendment request according to § 172 AO was submitted on 29.01.2021.
On 12.04.2021, the tax office issued an administrative act (rejection). The reason for this rejection was that the deadline for objection according to § 172 para. 1 sentence 2a AO, within which an amendment request is permissible, had already expired on 15.12.2019.
An objection could be lodged against the tax office's administrative act within a one-month period.
I have also heard about the ruling of the FG Düsseldorf from 3.11.2016 (Case No.: 11 K 2694/13 E), where an objection decision was challenged by an amendment request according to § 172 AO. However, I could not find any information on whether an amendment request can be made against a tax assessment that has already been amended by an earlier amendment request without prior objection.
My questions:
1. Is the tax office correct? Is the objection period calculated as stated? (i.e., only the "original" objection period from 2019 counts? or is the objection period of the last decision on 14.01.2021 decisive, so that an amendment request according to § 172 AO was permissible until 15.02.2021? thus, was mine from 29.01.2021 also permissible?)
2. If I file an objection against the rejection on 12.04.2021, will the tax office be allowed to fully review the entire income tax return for 2018? Or only the points challenged in the amendment request from 29.01.2021? This is particularly important as there is the possibility of a worsening in the case of a full review.
3. How can I proceed against the administrative act to ensure that I am on the safe side (i.e., to exclude a comprehensive review at least)?
Please also cite the laws and/or legal precedents in answering my questions, as they play a crucial role.
