(Only) distance lump sum for journeys of flight personnel to the airport as their primary place of work

Employee's daily expenses for travel between their home and their primary place of work – i.e. the one-way distance (distance lump sum) – are generally to be claimed as income-related expenses at a flat rate of EUR 0.30 for the first 20 kilometres of distance within the respective income category; from the 21st kilometre onwards, the distance lump sum increases to EUR 0.35 (2021) or EUR 0.38 (from 2022). From the 2026 assessment period onwards, a uniform rate of EUR 0.38 applies from the first kilometre of distance (Tax Amendment Act 2025 of December 22, 2025, Federal Law Gazette 2025 I No. 363). On the other hand, work-related travel expenses are deductible at the flat rates for the actual kilometres driven – round trip – in accordance with the Federal Travel Expenses Act as the highest mileage allowance. The Fiscal Court Cologne in its decision of December 4, 2024 (case no. 12 K 1369/21) and the Fiscal Court Berlin-Brandenburg in its decision of September 18, 2025 (case no. 14 K 14094/23) clarified whether the (home) airport assigned to flight personnel by their employer constitutes a so-called primary place of work under certain conditions, so that their expenses for travelling there are not deductible as travel expenses, but only as the so-called distance lump sum.

In the case before the Fiscal Court Cologne (decision of December 4, 2024, case no. 12 K 1369/21, “pilot”) an employed pilot was assigned to an airport 150 km away from his home in accordance with his employment contract with an airline. He travelled the distance for his long-haul flights in the dispute year 2018 mainly by car and arrived there approximately two hours before each departure. The pilot completed the electronic flight preparation in his home office; at the airport building, he merely confirmed his presence in writing, checked in electronically, discussed the upcoming flight with the crew and, if necessary, obtained updates on the flight data before boarding the aircraft about an hour and three quarters before departure. In the cockpit, he completed all safety-related tasks for the flight (e.g. entering the flight data into the aircraft system via cable, communicating the amount of fuel to be refueled, monitoring the refueling process, checking the aircraft for flight safety).

In his 2018 income tax return, he claimed 73 trips to the stationing airport as business trips, each covering the actual distance of 300 km, at a flat rate of EUR 0.30 as income-related expenses from his employment income. The tax office only considered the one-way distance to the airport at EUR 0.30 per 150 km in its assessment; it considered this – as did the FG hereafter – to be the pilot's primary place of work.

This refers to the employer's fixed, operational facility to which the employee is permanently assigned. It consists of spatially grouped material resources that serve the employer's activities and are either permanently fixed to the ground or predominantly location bound; this also includes a large area with developed infrastructure, such as an airport. Even if this consists of many separate operational facilities such as buildings and other terrain – like access and departure routes, runways and aircraft parking spaces – it can be spatially delimited in an organisational, technical or economic context with the employer's operational activities – in this case, the airline's operations. Assignment to such a facility is based on service and labour law provisions as well as the agreements and instructions that implement them. Permanent assignment is generally assumed in the case of an indefinite employment relationship or if the employee has been working for more than 48 months.

In the present case, in the opinion of the Fiscal Court, both the actual assignment of the pilot and its permanence were indisputably fulfilled. The fact that the pilot did not visit his base airport every working day is just as irrelevant as his so-called dead-head flights, in which the pilot first travels to another airport as a passenger before starting his flight from there.

In addition, the pilot worked at the airport to an extent sufficient to fulfil his employment contract and in line with his job description, so that the airport could be classified as his primary place of work. The Fiscal Court left open the question of whether the pilot's activities carried out in the airport building were sufficient for this purpose. This is because his typical activities also include those carried out in the aircraft (cockpit) until it takes off from the runway, as these take place on the airport premises as a large-scale, stationary operational facility. The Fiscal Court focused on all of the pilot's duties under his employment contract at the ‘large-scale (stationary) place of work at the airport’, although he is partially in a mobile vehicle (aircraft).

In the other case before the Fiscal Court Berlin-Brandenburg (decision of September 18, 2025, case no. 14 K 14094/23, “flight attendant”), a flight attendant employed under an employment contract was permanently assigned to a specific airport. The flight attendant, who lived elsewhere, claimed 78 trips to her base airport, each covering a distance of 140 km, at a flat rate of EUR 0.30 in accordance with business travel principles as income-related expenses in her 2021 income tax return. This was because she did not perform her professional activities (e.g. boarding passengers, briefings) in the airport building, but in the aircraft itself. The tax office, on the other hand, only recognized the journeys at the distance lump sum. It considered the airport to be the flight attendant`s primary place of work, in particular because the works agreement submitted contained activities that were part of her job description and which she also performed outside the aircraft – e.g. in the crew lounge – to a not insignificant extent. The Fiscal Court agreed with this assessment.

It classifies the airport assigned to the flight attendant as her home base in terms of its total area as a fixed operational facility (including buildings, access and departure routes, runways and aircraft parking spaces) and thus as her primary place of work if she performs more than minor activities in the entire airport premises. The tasks performed at the airport also include those performed by the flight attendant in the aircraft still parked on the airport grounds.

Notice:

The appeals against both decisions are pending before the German Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) (“pilot”: case no. VI R 4/25; “flight attendant”: case no. VI R 17/25). In the case VI R 4/25, the BFH has to clarify - for the first time, as far as can be seen -the question of whether, under the current legal situation, the activities of a pilot in the cockpit of an aircraft are to be assigned to the large-scale and fixed place of work that is the airport. In its decision of April 11, 2019 (case no. VI R 40/16), the BFH had assigned the so-called briefing rooms of an airline at the airport to the then newly introduced concept of the ‘primary place of work’ and thus only allowed the distance lump sum to be deducted. However, according to its decision of February 26, 2014 (case no. VI R 68/12 (NV)) concerning the old legal situation, a pilot's cockpit was not a regular place of work due to its lack of permanence, and the pilot's corresponding travel expenses were to be recognised as business travel.

The appeal lodged in case VI R 17/25 – following a presumably successful application for reinstatement – enables the highest court to clarify the legal question of whether the travel expenses incurred by a flight attendant to her base airport and the associated additional meal expenses are to be considered as income-related expenses in accordance with the principles governing business travel.

For both professional groups, legal certainty through corresponding BFH decisions would be welcomed. Similar cases should be kept open.