NRW audits influencers – and suddenly normal rules apply?

In the meantime, the influencer market is no longer a special case for tax purposes, but a clearly recognizable business model. This is particularly evident in the example of North Rhine-Westphalia, where it is becoming publicly visible that the tax authorities are systematically looking at creator income. This is not just an NRW issue. The decisive factor is the development behind it: Tax offices know how influencers monetize, how platforms pay out, how agencies work and which typical sources of income are relevant in practice. The old assumption that “they don’t understand it anyway” is no longer valid.

This also changes the risk profile. Where many things used to go through with few queries, nowadays queries, audit orders or requests for information arise more quickly. And where terms such as “donations”, “support” or “gift” are often used in the scene, the tax authorities look at the actual economic classification. This regularly leads to misunderstandings – not out of malice, but because social media wording and tax law are rarely congruent.

Which revenues typically stand out – not just donations and subs

The focus of the audit is not just on donations or subs. In many cases, it is about the complete, often highly mixed revenue picture: paid cooperations, sponsoring, advertising revenues, affiliate commissions, UGC deals, product placements, license fees, merch, digital products, workshops, consulting services, revenue shares, participations, brokerage commissions, platform payouts and, last but not least, non-cash benefits (products, vouchers, travel, invitations). Even simple constellations can be flawed for tax purposes if income is distributed across several channels, accounting is confusing or private and business spheres are mixed.

Donations” in particular are a classic source of misunderstanding. In communities, this is understood as voluntary support. However, the term is not relevant for tax purposes. The decisive factor is whether and how the payment is economically related to a service and how it is actually received. This applies all the more if payments are linked to visibility, reactions, mentions, exclusive access or other benefits. Even if it says “voluntary” in the head, in tax reality there may be a clear revenue element.

The real weak point: accounting, receipts, contracts – and clean roles in agency structures

Most problems are not caused by a single error, but by a lack of structure. Typical problems include missing or incomplete platform reports, no consistent filing of invoices, unclear service descriptions for collaborations, no separation of accounts, missing allocation to time periods or a “patchwork” of PayPal, platform wallets, agency invoices and direct payments. When inquiries are then made, the focus is less on the creative activity and more on the question of whether income has been documented in a comprehensible manner and explained correctly.

Agencies often unintentionally exacerbate these issues because they stand between the creator and the advertising client and bundle payment flows or billing logic. This is exactly where clear roles are needed: Who issues invoices? Who collects the money? Who owes what service? Who has reporting obligations? Who supplies receipts? Without contractual order, chain problems quickly arise: The creator assumes net, the client pays gross, the agency deducts fees, platforms reduce, and in the end the tax declaration no longer matches the actual cash flow. This is not a theoretical danger, but one of the most common reasons why audits become unpleasant.

When the tax office asks: first put things in order, then explain – and take timing seriously

As soon as a letter is received, it should not be argued reflexively, but should first be organized: complete revenue overview, allocation of channels, delimitation of revenue types, securing of reports, comparison with account statements and contracts. Communication only makes sense when the picture is right. Unstructured statements (“those were just donations”, “that was a hobby”) rarely help if the objective data suggests otherwise. On the contrary: inaccurate statements create contradictions that are difficult to resolve later.

A second point is the timing of corrections. A correction obligation may arise for tax purposes if declarations were objectively incorrect or incomplete; in practice, Section 153 AO is often relevant. In criminally sensitive constellations, voluntary disclosure (Section 371 AO) is also an option. This is precisely the crucial point, which often comes too late: if the tax authorities are already aware of the circumstances or if the offense has already been discovered, a voluntary disclosure is often no longer possible or at least no longer risk-free. Anyone who only reacts when the matter is already “on the table” loses room for maneuver. This is why proactive clean-up is usually the economically wiser course of action – not just when an audit is underway.

Why legal advice is not “nice to have” here – but risk management

Tax consultants are the first port of call for ongoing accounting, declarations and structural issues. In creator and agency constellations, however, there is almost always a second level: Contract and liability risks, delimitation of roles, clean service descriptions, rights and remuneration models, obligations to cooperate, reporting, auditing processes and the correct handling of communication with authorities. It is precisely this interface that is underestimated in practice – until it becomes expensive.

Anyone who monetizes professionally therefore needs a setup that works like any other company: proper accounting, traceable chains of receipts, clear contracts, clean payment flows and a realistic understanding of the fact that tax offices can now classify influencer models very precisely. NRW is just a striking example. The message is universal: the earlier structures are put in order, the lower the risk that misunderstandings will lead to back payments, interest and – in the worst case – severe consequences under criminal tax law.

Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.