Many people have asked whether I’ve gotten my assets back by now.
The honest answer: No.
The tax office is still relying on estimates created during my time in detention.
They claim demonstrations were a business model and that QUERDENKEN-711 allegedly generated profits.
Based on this, income tax, trade tax, and corporate tax assessments for 2020 and 2021 were issued – and enforced.
My tax advisory team has filed objections.
At the end of 2024, a lawsuit was filed with the tax court.
To this day, no hearing date has been set.
The regional court’s ruling is effectively being ignored.
There is no end in sight.
I hope to recover at least part of my assets before new systems like the digital euro are introduced. A so-called CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is a programmable digital currency issued by central banks. What that means: money can be technically controlled – what it can be used for, and what it cannot. Political activities like demonstrations could be easily restricted, simply by blocking or limiting payments.
Background: Acquitted – Yet Still No Access to My Own Assets
After 44 days of hearings, I was acquitted of all major charges.
The core accusations – fraud, money laundering, personal enrichment – completely collapsed.
What remains is clear:
The foundation of the case was never solid to begin with.
As early as the 11th day of trial, it became clear that the tax allegations were based on flawed figures and unsupported estimates. Even officials had to admit that key calculations were unreliable and lacked a solid foundation.
On the 13th day of trial, this became even more obvious: investigators couldn’t even define what the “purposes of Querdenken” were supposed to be. Instead of clear criteria, there were personal assumptions and subjective interpretations. Expenses were judged based on opinion – without any professional basis.
The result of this approach is clear:
In court, the accusations collapsed like a house of cards.
And yet, it continues
Despite the acquittal, hundreds of thousands of euros of my assets remain frozen.
Tax authorities are not responding, assessments remain unprocessed, and repayments are not being made.
What we are seeing now is the second phase:
- No longer criminal law – but administrative law.
- No longer prosecution – but delay.
- No longer accusations – but silence.
What happens next
- Lawsuit in tax court
- Action for failure to act against the tax office
- Legal review of the asset seizures
- Clarification of a fundamental question:
Can demonstrations be treated as a taxable business model?
Because if that were the case, any organizer of a demonstration could be arbitrarily criminalized.
Final thought
This is not just about me.
It’s about how a state treats people who exercise their fundamental rights.
And it’s about whether court rulings are actually enforced –
or simply ignored.
I will keep going.
First published on X – Comment on X
Press Releases
Defense Team’s Press Release on the 5th Day / November 12, 2024 – Substantial losses: 25,000 euros in 2020 and 54,000 euros in 2021
https://presse.querdenken-711.de/en/press-releases/defense-teams-press-release-on-the-5th-day-of-michael-ballwegs-criminal-trial-november-12-2024/
11th Day of Trial in the Case of Michael Ballweg – Faulty Figures, Unsupported Estimates, and Troubling Investigative Gaps
https://presse.querdenken-711.de/en/press-releases/11th-day-of-trial-in-the-case-of-michael-ballweg-faulty-figures-unsupported-estimates-and-troubling-investigative-gaps/
13th Day of the Trial Against Michael Ballweg – Tax Investigator’s “Life Experience” and Undefined Purposes of Querdenken in the Spotlight
https://presse.querdenken-711.de/en/press-releases/press-release-13th-day-of-the-trial-against-michael-ballweg-tax-investigators-life-experience-and-undefined-purposes-of-querdenken-in-the-spotlight/
Question 1 (@Carmen11Benz): “Well, the estimated tax assessments became legally binding. Why didn’t the tax advisory team—who surely had authorization—file an objection?”
Dear @Carmen11Benz,
At first glance, it does sound absurd – why would anyone let estimated tax assessments become final?
Quick clarification:
An objection was filed on time – by my tax advisory team with full authorization. The assessments did not become legally binding. Instead, the objections have been sitting with the tax office for years without being processed. At the end of 2024, we filed an action for failure to act with the tax court. To this day, no hearing date has been scheduled.
And that’s exactly the issue: after my acquittal on all major charges (“demonstrations as a business model” completely collapsed in the criminal trial), the tax office is simply ignoring the ruling and continues enforcement based on the same outdated estimates that have already been disproven.
@SHomburg put it very precisely – especially regarding the legal limits of tax estimation under Section 162 of the German Fiscal Code:
“Background: Tax bases are estimated when taxpayers persistently refuse to file a return. In this case, the charges should have been based on the declared loss (…). Instead, the entire case has been based on assumptions from the beginning – which is unacceptable.”
https://x.com/SHomburg/status/1864018123562590677
He further explains that I did not “persistently refuse” to file – I was in detention, my documents were confiscated, and a requested deadline extension was improperly denied. The tax returns submitted later (showing losses) have been sitting unprocessed at the Stuttgart tax office for years.
In addition, @SHomburg has repeatedly pointed out that the tax authorities, under the responsibility of @DerDanyal, were a driving force behind this political case and continue to pursue it aggressively:
- https://x.com/SHomburg/status/2004556478607413461 (lawsuit against the tax authorities)
- https://x.com/SHomburg/status/2028764238110511527 (tax offices as driving force)
This is no longer a normal tax procedure. It is lawfare – the continuation of a political campaign using administrative means. Court rulings are ignored, evidence from the criminal trial is disregarded, and unsustainable estimates are upheld even though the legal requirements for such estimates were never met.
I will continue to pursue this – through further legal action, by addressing the asset seizures, and by clarifying the fundamental question of whether the state can simply classify peaceful demonstrations as a “taxable business.”
Thank you, @SHomburg, for your clear and well-founded voice on this issue. You consistently get to the heart of the matter.
Further relevant points raised by Homburg:
- The tax returns submitted in 2023 (showing losses) are still not being processed → the tax office is deliberately avoiding clarification and instead continues to rely on outdated estimates.
- This contradicts the principle that tax authorities must exercise discretion properly when there are uncertainties or differing declarations – here, that discretion was clearly misused (deadline extension denied despite detention and confiscation of documents).
- Homburg (who taught tax law, including the Fiscal Code, at university for many years) sees clear violations of German tax law.
In summary, Homburg’s position is: the estimation was unlawful from the outset because the legal requirements for such an estimate were not met – and the tax office is simply ignoring the subsequently submitted tax returns.
Question 2 (@Gartenkoch1): “If I’m reading this correctly, the issue of tax evasion is still unresolved. And as far as I know, the public prosecutor has also filed an appeal against the rest. So why should the tax office act if there’s no final decision yet?”
Response by Michael Ballweg
Thanks for raising this – let me clarify it precisely so there’s no room for half-truths.
The public prosecutor has indeed filed an appeal (revision) against parts of the ruling (primarily against the full acquittal on the central charge of attempted fraud). That’s correct and was expected following the written judgment issued in December 2025.
But here’s the key point: the tax-related allegations that were part of the criminal trial are not “still open.” The Stuttgart Regional Court did not impose a penalty, but only issued a formal warning regarding €19.53 in VAT. That is clearly stated in the 342-page judgment.
Prof. @SHomburg summarized this accurately back in July 2025 and again after the written judgment in December 2025 – and his assessment is correct. (See his posts on the 11th day of trial – https://x.com/SHomburg/status/1864018123562590677 and on the reasoning of the judgment – https://x.com/SHomburg/status/1996977442351993317).
Despite this, the tax office continues to block my assets based on the same old estimates from my pretrial detention, which the court already dismantled in the criminal proceedings as “unreliable,” “insufficiently substantiated,” and “based on assumptions.” Even the tax official admitted under oath that she had simply adopted the investigators’ figures without conducting her own review.
This is the core issue:
- The criminal court says: the foundation was flawed.
- The tax office says: we ignore the ruling and wait for the tax court (where, to this day, no hearing has been scheduled).
This is not a matter of a “pending final decision” in criminal tax law – this is administrative law being used to continue the case by other means. As @SHomburg has pointed out repeatedly: the Ministry of Finance and the tax authorities were key drivers of this lawfare case from the very beginning.
That’s why I’ve filed a lawsuit with the tax court, along with an action for failure to act. And that’s why I’m continuing to pursue this.
This is not just about my assets.
It’s about whether a court acquittal actually means something – or whether authorities can simply ignore it while an appeal is pending.
Thank you, @SHomburg, for your clear legal analysis from the very beginning.