A letter from the tax office about crypto
An information request, an audit order and a notice that criminal proceedings have been opened look alike and have entirely different consequences. Before you answer, it must be clear which of the three is in front of you.
- Note the deadline and do nothing else — do not telephone either.
- The legal basis cited in the letter tells you which procedure you are in.
- An audit order or the opening of criminal proceedings bars a voluntary disclosure.
- Without a reconstructed transaction history no reliable answer is possible.
- Note: a well-meant answer to the wrong letter can close routes permanently.
Which letter is it?
The legal basis is stated in the text. It determines everything that follows.
| Type of letter | How to recognise it | Effect on voluntary disclosure |
|---|---|---|
| Information request questions on accounts, exchanges, wallets |
Sec. 93 AO | Does not necessarily bar it — but depending on content may amount to discovery |
| Questionnaire on crypto assets structured enquiry for the assessment |
Sec. 88, 90 AO | Does not bar it — but your answer forms part of the return and must be correct |
| Audit order notice of an external audit |
Sec. 193, 196 AO | Bars it within the scope of the order, sec. 371(2) no 1a |
| Opening of criminal proceedings with a caution about the right to silence |
Sec. 397, 397a AO | Bars it, sec. 371(2) no 1b |
| An official appears unannounced, with identification |
Sec. 371(2) no 1c AO | Bars it from the moment of appearance |
If the letter tells you that you are free to comment and may instruct defence counsel at any time, the matter is already criminal. From that point the duty to cooperate in tax matters no longer applies without limitation — and everything you say becomes part of the file.
Four reactions that make it worse
What people do in the first few days, and what it costs.
Calling to ask what it is about
The call is meant to clarify. In fact it often begins the investigation of the facts — with statements from memory that cannot later be withdrawn. Depending on the stage, the conversation alone can put a voluntary disclosure out of reach.
Answering quickly to get it over with
An answer without a reconstructed history is an estimate. If it later diverges from the actual figures, the allegation of giving incorrect information arises — and this time within pending proceedings, which weighs considerably more.
Sending everything you have
Attaching a full data export unasked extends the scope to years and transactions nobody enquired about. What is requested is what is produced. That is not concealment; it is confining the answer to the subject matter.
Letting the deadline pass
Silence does not solve it. It leads to an estimate under section 162 of the Fiscal Code, regularly with acquisition cost of zero. An extension is almost always available if requested in time and with reasons.
How our cases have ended
Working on crypto matters since 2016, exclusively since 2021. Clients throughout Germany.
In nearly all concluded cases the matter was settled either as a correction under section 153 of the Fiscal Code or, at worst, as reckless tax understatement under section 378.
Ongoing cases are of course not included. We always have some — and how one of those ends also depends on the prosecutor and the court.
Reckless tax understatement is an Ordnungswidrigkeit — a regulatory or administrative offence (an infringement), not a crime: no criminal record, no entry, and no basis for professional disciplinary proceedings.
The surcharge under section 398a and the evasion interest under section 235 of the Fiscal Code fall away at the same time. Not because they were fought off, but because both presuppose tax evasion. Where the matter rests on section 153 or section 378, that precondition is absent.
To put that in context: the usual outcomes of German tax criminal proceedings are a discontinuance on conditions under section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under section 398 of the Fiscal Code. In the concluded cases that has so far not occurred — they ended one step below.
That record is not luck; it follows a method. Tax evasion under section 370 of the Fiscal Code requires incorrect statements about facts of tax relevance — and intent. A legal position is not a fact. Someone who discloses and reasons a position makes no incorrect statement; they take a view. Recklessness under section 378 likewise becomes doubtful where a question is objectively unresolved.
What matters, therefore, is whether it can be shown that the question was open. A pending case is that evidence. So we do not wait for someone else to clarify the disputed points; we litigate them ourselves — on lending, on airdrops, on wallet-by-wallet calculation and on the disposal sequence. Each of those questions is thereby documented as disputed, and what is disputed can hardly have been evaded deliberately.
The converse holds as well: silence is not a legal position. Taking a view without stating it is not advocacy, it is omission. That is why we disclose departures from the tax authorities’ view expressly in the return. The proceedings we run
Every case turns on its own facts, and we give no assurance as to outcome. Anyone who did would be promising something no one can deliver.
What can be influenced is the starting position: whether the transaction history is in order before the authority asks, and whether the first response to the letter was the right one.
Regulated professionals: when the tax is not the real problem
For lawyers, tax advisers, civil servants, doctors and pilots, professional existence is at stake alongside the tax. A conviction for tax evasion can cost admission to practice, the employment relationship or a licence, regardless of the amount involved. The threshold therefore lies elsewhere than for other clients: not at the figure, but at whether a criminal offence is established at all.
We have advised four regulated professionals in such proceedings. All four are concluded and ended below the criminal threshold; no professional consequences followed. That too is a statement about the course of those cases, not an assurance for yours.
What changed in 2026
Two developments that together alter the timing.
With the implementation of DAC 8, crypto asset service providers report their users, and the data is exchanged automatically between member states. Existing user relationships are covered, not only newly opened accounts. What gets reported
The Federal Minister of Finance and the Federal Minister of Justice presented a joint action plan with 26 measures. It provides for a joint centre against tax and financial crime at the customs administration, a data analysis centre with a shared federal and state platform, and expressly blockchain analysis.
Measure nine concerns voluntary disclosure directly: exemption from punishment is to be abolished in its present form. No draft legislation has been published.
- 16 July 2026action plan, 26 measures
- Measure 9voluntary disclosure in its present form
- Data accessshared federal and state platform
- AnalysisAI pattern recognition, blockchain analysis
- Sentencingup to 15 years for organised tax crime
- Statusa political programme, not yet law
We consider the announced abolition of voluntary disclosure misconceived: it removes the incentive to return to compliance without improving detection. Until any new rule takes effect, section 371 of the Fiscal Code applies unchanged.
How we proceed
Four steps. The first costs you nothing but the letter.
Classifying the letter
Which legal basis, which procedure, which deadline, which barring effect. From that it follows whether a disclosure is still open or whether the matter is already criminal. Everything else depends on this.
Reconstructing the history
Exports from all exchanges and wallets, identification of your own addresses, prices for each inflow, disposal sequence. Where a platform no longer exists, reconstruction from the blockchain and from bank statements. Without this any answer is guesswork.
Strategy and response
What is to be produced and what is not, which positions are disputed, which extension is to be requested. Where a disclosure makes sense it is prepared in full before it is filed.
Through to conclusion
Correspondence with the authority, the closing meeting, review of the assessment and, where an open legal question is affected, an appeal. All correspondence is handled in German by us and explained to you in English.
Call, or request a callback. Please do not send the letter unprompted by email or messenger — we set up an encrypted channel for that. Confidentiality under section 57 of the German Tax Advisory Act applies from the first conversation.
Where our remit ends
Two limits we would rather state now than later.
A German tax adviser may conduct the defence in tax criminal proceedings alone so long as the tax authority conducts the proceedings itself. Once the public prosecutor takes the matter over, the defence may be conducted only jointly with a lawyer.
We therefore work with specialist lawyers for tax law. The division is clear: the lawyer conducts the criminal defence, we handle the tax analysis and the reconstruction of the transaction history. Both have to fit together, or contradictions appear in the file.
Our authorisation covers German tax law and German tax criminal procedure. We do not advise on the criminal law of any other country and do not represent clients before foreign authorities.
Where another jurisdiction is involved — because you were resident there, held accounts there or have moved there since — we coordinate with lawyers admitted in that country and confine ourselves to the German aspects. In practice one part is needed in both proceedings: a reconstructed, documented transaction history. That is the part we contribute, and it can usually be used on both sides.
For fellow advisers and defence counsel
A substantial share of our engagements comes through other firms. A tax adviser with a client holding several thousand transactions across five exchanges and three wallets does not have to do that reconstruction in house. A defence lawyer running a crypto case needs someone who can make the data verifiable.
We take on that part, and where it is preferred we do not enter into the client relationship ourselves. Expert opinions and statements (in German)
Questions and answers
I have received a letter about my crypto holdings. What do I do first?
How can I tell which one it is?
Is a voluntary disclosure still possible?
How have your cases ended so far?
What does it do for me that you litigate your own cases?
I am a lawyer, tax adviser or civil servant. What does that mean for me?
Can you defend me in criminal proceedings?
I also have exposure in another country. Can you handle that?
Legal position: 25 August 2026. Sources: sections 88, 90, 93, 147, 153, 162, 370, 193, 196, 235, 371, 378, 392, 397, 397a, 398, 398a of the Fiscal Code; section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure; section 57 of the German Tax Advisory Act; the joint action plan against tax and financial crime of 16 July 2026; Directive (EU) 2023/2226.
The action plan is a political programme and does not itself change the law; no draft legislation had been published at the time of writing. Statements about outcomes relate exclusively to concluded engagements; ongoing cases are not included, and no outcome is assured for any individual case. This page is not advice on an individual case. Where this English text and the German version differ, the German version governs.