Regularity of an electronic logbook

If subsequent changes in an electronic logbook are not documented in the data file itself, this does not constitute a proper logbook.

Electronic logbooks are now the rule rather than the exception, as they usually make the tedious documentation work easier for the tax office. However, the Düsseldorf Tax Court has once again pointed out that electronic logbooks must also have a closed form in order to be recognized for tax purposes.

According to the ruling, a logbook generated with the help of a computer program only has an externally closed form if subsequent changes to the data entered at an earlier point in time are technically impossible or are documented or disclosed in the file itself and are already recognizable upon normal inspection of the electronic logbook. All required information must be evident from the logbook itself. A reference to supplementary documents is only permissible if this does not impair the closed character of the logbook records.

The electronic logbooks kept in the case in dispute do not meet these requirements because a program was used that allows subsequent changes without disclosing these changes in the logbook itself. Entered journeys could be changed or deleted at will until the respective month was fixed. Changes made were not directly visible in the logbook itself, but were merely recorded in log files. Consequently, the correctness of the logbook can only be checked by using the change logs. It is true that these log files cannot be changed or deleted. However, the court is convinced that such external files are not suitable for establishing the closed form of the logbook.

However, the court is convinced that such external files are not suitable for establishing the closed form of the logbook. The plaintiff could also not rely on the fact that the logbook was not objected to during the previous external audit, although it had been created using the same software. A mere non-objection during the external audit does not mean that the taxpayer can invoke the protection of legitimate expectations during a subsequent audit.