According to the Münster Tax Court, voluntary payments by a wind farm operator to local residents without existing legal entitlements constitute non-deductible gifts within the meaning of Section 4 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG), even if they serve to promote the acceptance of the plant's operation. However, procedural consideration of these payments as increasing taxable profit is only permissible to the extent that the assessment notices are still subject to amendment (Case No. 1 K 1502/25).

The plaintiff operates a wind farm and, after commissioning the turbines, made voluntary payments to residents living near the wind turbines. These payments were based on a so-called lease and resident model and were expressly structured as voluntary contributions without legal entitlement. They were intended to promote acceptance of the wind farm. Recipients included both residents without any corporate relationship to the plaintiff and residents who were also limited partners in the plaintiff. The tax office initially treated the payments as business expenses and – insofar as limited partners were involved – as special business income. Later, it classified all payments as non-deductible business expenses in the form of gifts (Section 4 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Income Tax Act) and increased the current profit. The plaintiff objected to this, arguing that the payments were compensation or goodwill payments to offset depreciation and loss of quality of life, not gifts.

The Münster Tax Court ruled that the voluntary payments made by local residents constitute gifts within the meaning of Section 4 Paragraph 5 Sentence 1 No. 1 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG). The payments were made without any legal or actual consideration from the recipients. In particular, the recipients did not waive any existing claims. The purpose of fostering acceptance for the wind farm did not preclude classification as gifts, as these were so-called "purpose-bound" gifts. Therefore, the payments were generally not deductible as business expenses. However, the lawsuit was partially successful on procedural grounds. An amendment to the legally binding assessment notices was only permissible insofar as it concerned payments to limited partners. There was no procedural basis for amendment regarding payments to non-partners. To this extent, the contested notices were unlawful. As a result, the payments remained gifts under substantive law, but could no longer be partially considered as increasing taxable profit.