Training assistance – loans to dependents, entitlement to housing allowance and transfer of assets

Male with question mark, gears and light bulb

The VG karlsruhe, the VG hamburg and the VG oldenburg have recently made the following decisions regarding bafog:

For the sake of simplicity I give in each case only the leading sentences to the knowledge and/or. Report briefly:

1. Judgment of the VG karlsruhe of 23. March 2005 (10 K 4181/03) on dependents' loans as debts deductible from the trainee's assets:

In the law governing the promotion of training, it is appropriate to assess loans to relatives according to the tax principles of arm's length comparison with regard to the question of whether they are debts that can be deducted from the trainee's assets.
(according to § 28 para. 3 bafog, debts are deducted from the assets for the calculation of the assets. According to arm's length tax principles, loan agreements between relatives are only recognized if these agreements correspond to what is customary between unrelated third parties).

2. Judgement of the VG hamburg from 11. May 2005 (9 K 255/05) on a student's entitlement to housing allowance:

Today, § 2 para. 1 a bafog, when a student is entitled to housing allowance. Bafog is not granted, if the training place from the parents is reasonably attainable. However, if a student has made decisions that preclude returning to the parents' home, the student is not merely "temporarily" absent from the parents' household. This also applies if the student partially covers his living expenses from maintenance payments from his parents. In the case decided, a mother of two children had already had a household in a dormitory with two children for three and a half years.

3. Judgment of the VG oldenburg of 22. February 2008 (13 A 2911/05) on the reclaiming of educational grants due to misuse of rights in the transfer of assets:

A) A misuse of assets does not require that the trainee has acted in a subjectively reprehensible manner; rather, the only decisive factor is whether the misuse of assets occurred close to the time of the application and without equivalent consideration, and whether it contradicts the legal purpose of the asset imputation. Since education assistance is denied only for the respective grant period due to the priority to be given to assets, it must be checked for each subsequent grant period when deciding whether to grant education assistance whether any assets still available continue to prevent the provision of education assistance. If the training grant is not paid until after the credited assets have been used for the trainee's living expenses and training, the trainee is basically abusing his or her rights if, in order to obtain a (possibly. To avoid a new) crediting of assets in the following grant period, transfers assets to a third party free of charge instead of using them for his livelihood and his education. Independently of the civil-legal effectiveness of the gratuitous property transfers has the promotion-legally to the consequence that the transferred property is further assigned to the apprentice and in accordance with §§ 26 ff bafog on the need is taken into account.

B) if it is claimed that the assets were not disposed of gratuitously because the disposition was used to repay loan liabilities with close relatives, the criteria apply that are set out in § 28 para. 3 bafog are authoritative. Afterwards loan obligations are to be deducted from the fortune only, if a legal obligation for the payment of the demands exists and at the same time seriously with the asserting of the demand by the creditor straight in the grant period of the education promotion to be counted is. In this context, although the principles developed by the BFH on the so-called arm's length comparison cannot be used to clarify whether legally binding loans have been granted, according to which loan agreements are only recognized if they ..