Dear readers,

The latest judgement on the visitor's tax has caused a stir in the sailing scene in many places. The Administrative Court in Mannheim had rubber-stamped a passage in the Kressbronn visitor's tax statutes, according to which tenants of permanent moorings who are not resident in Kressbronn may now also be asked to pay. We reported on this on yacht.de.

This was preceded by a years-long legal dispute. Originally, the local authority had wanted to collect around 200 euros a year from the boat owners concerned. Associations, harbour operators and affected owners took legal action against this. In the end, their efforts paid off, at least to the extent that the tourist tax is now "only" allowed to amount to just under 60 euros per year.

But even these 60 euros, even if they will hardly hurt those affected, are too much!

Boat owners should be exempt from the tourist tax because they hardly use the typical spa infrastructure. What's more, they usually pay high mooring fees anyway. Additional charges such as a visitor's tax are counterproductive in terms of promoting tourism in a region. In other words, they act as a deterrent. And not just permanent residents, but also day visitors who only visit a harbour for one or two nights.

This is particularly evident in the examples of Rügen and Lake Constance, where double charges and legally questionable equating of permanent residents with classic overnight guests lead to resentment.

What tourist tax should do - and why sailors don't fit the bill

The visitor's tax is basically intended as an earmarked charge for tourist services: beach cleaning, promenades, spa concerts, tourist information, local transport. In the statutes, it is usually linked to the fact that someone is staying in a municipality as an "overnight guest" - classically in a hotel, holiday flat or on a campsite.

The typical cruising sailor only fits this mould to a very limited extent. He spends most of the day on the water, not in the harbour. They usually only use the harbour infrastructure (sanitary facilities, harbour restaurant, possibly a bread roll service), but this is already financed by the mooring fees. And they often only stay one night and travel on early, without visiting spa facilities, events or beaches to any significant extent.

In short, sailors are treated like traditional tourists, although their usage profile is more akin to that of a transit guest who experiences the area as a transit zone and uses the municipal services only occasionally.

Rügen: Double visitor's tax and decreasing number of guests

Rügen is a good example of how inappropriate visitor's tax rules for water sports enthusiasts can be. Sailors have to pay in several harbours, who arrive in the evening and depart in the morning pay a tourist tax for two full days - for the day of arrival and departure. As a result, a family of four pays another 20 euros in visitor's tax in addition to mooring fees of around 20 euros per night, even though they only spend one evening in the harbour.

The multiple charges are particularly problematic: if you leave one harbour in the morning and call at another on Rügen in the evening, you can be asked to pay both here and there - even though you have spent the whole day on the water. Although some Baltic seaside resorts (Sellin, Baabe, Göhren, Mönchgut) now recognise each other's visitor's tax, this regulation does not apply island-wide.

Harbour operators in Rügen even point out that the visitor's tax is higher than the mooring fee in some cases. And that guest arrivals - especially boats with several people - are on the decline. In addition, the administrative burden on the harbours is enormous because data has to be recorded for each individual guest.

As a result, sailors are switching to harbours with more moderate or clearer rules. In the end, both the harbours and the tourist destination as a whole lose revenue.

Kressbronn: legally permissible, politically questionable

On Lake Constance, Kressbronn shows another facet of the problem: there, the visitor's tax was explicitly extended to permanent moorings belonging to external owners. From now on, they will pay even if they do not consider themselves to be tourists.

Following a lengthy judicial review procedure, the Administrative Court in Mannheim ruled, as mentioned above, that the levying of a tourist tax for boat moorings is permissible in principle. However, it was initially clarified that a flat-rate charge for boats with the assumption of two people and 30 days of use is excessive; only a flat-rate assumption of 15 days is justifiable, which the municipality later implemented in an amended statute.

This shows a fundamental imbalance, especially for long-term moorers: they already invest considerably in mooring fees, maintenance and local services - and are also expected to pay a tourist tax without actually being traditional spa or holiday guests. There is great resentment about this. In the social networks, the visitor's tax is labelled a "rip-off", a "modern form of state highway robbery" and "excessive bureaucracy".

There are advocates, but very few. Their arguments: there are also special tourism taxes elsewhere in the world. It's not worth getting upset about not even 60 euros a year. Or that paying tourist tax is a sign of solidarity.

I cannot and do not want to follow these arguments. The fact that every municipality issues different rules is not something that can be communicated to the general public, let alone to those specifically affected. It is high time that the legislator put a stop to this behaviour of overly ambitious city treasurers.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently the case: with the court ruling behind them, other municipalities on Lake Constance will soon want to cash in on the tourist tax in the harbours too.

Pascal Schürmann

YACHT copywriter

*** Vote/click to see the result! ***

Recommended reading from the editorial team

• Click here for all previous "YACHT Week" columns