Search
Contact
Symbolbild zu Sozialversicherungspflicht Lehrkräfte: Dozent im Hörsaal
06.05.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Social insurance obligation for teachers – transitional rule creates time

Educational institutions do not currently have to pay social security contributions for teachers, even in the case of bogus self-employment, if both parties originally assumed that the teacher was self-employed and the teacher agreed to this. This transitional rule in Section 127 SGB IV has now been extended until December 31, 2027. The decision takes pressure off the ongoing audit procedures and gives public institutions and private academies, providers of further education measures and other educational institutions more time to reorganize their models for the employment of teachers.

In the long term, however, the employment of honorary staff remains challenging. The Herrenberg ruling sets strict standards and the German Pension Insurance is reviewing the social security status of teachers and lecturers more and more frequently.

Anyone employing freelancers should use the additional time to review contracts and processes and set the course for the time after 2027, especially as Deutsche Rentenversicherung will soon be able to check much larger volumes of data and many more processes with its own AI (“KIRA”).

What applies now

Honorary staff remain exempt from social security contributions for the time being, despite a different status determination, if

  • both parties assumed self-employment when the contract was concluded
  • and the teacher expressly agrees.

This protective effect was previously valid until the end of 2026, but the latest extension postpones the deadline to December 31, 2027, giving training providers time to review existing structures and develop viable models for the time after that.

The Herrenberg ruling has confirmed the social security obligation of teachers

The German Pension Insurance generally examines fee-based activities intensively. It is increasingly relying on the ruling of the Federal Social Court of June 28, 2022, which became known as the Herrenberg ruling . In this case, a music teacher worked for a music school on a fee basis. She taught in fixed rooms at set times and was involved in internal processes. The court deemed the activity to be dependent employment despite the fee-based contract.

The ruling clearly shows which factors speak in favor of compulsory social insurance: personal work performance, fixed lesson times, specified rooms, little personal creative power, participation in school events. Those who work in this way are generally not considered self-employed.

This had tangible consequences for training providers: They had to reckon with demands for additional contributions, often in considerable amounts.

 

The transitional arrangement gives educational institutions more time

Following the ruling, the leading social insurance organizations discussed new standards for status assessment in May 2023. The guidelines were clarified, but uncertainty remained. Many institutions still do not know which criteria prevail in individual cases and how they should structure their models in a legally compliant manner.

The introduction of the transitional regulation on March 1, 2025 was intended to cushion this uncertainty. It gave educational institutions time without the immediate threat of additional demands. The extension that has now been agreed confirms that politicians still see the problem as unresolved.

 

How educational institutions benefit from the extension

The extended deadline gives many providers a real advantage:

  • Planning security for fee models until the end of 2027
  • Protection against additional contribution claims if the formal requirements are met
  • Time for structural adjustments, such as new contract models or a realignment of personnel deployment

Providers should use this time. Despite corresponding demands from interest groups, the legislator is making no attempt to create a legal regulation that would allow a clear decision to be made on the existence of self-employment. On the contrary: in discussions with the German Pension Insurance (Deutsche Rentenversicherung), one repeatedly encounters references to the fact that teachers are already subject to compulsory insurance in the statutory pension insurance scheme in accordance with Section 2 No. 1 SGB VI.

 

Vagueness of the transitional regulation

The wording of § 127 SGB IV leaves questions unanswered. For example, it remains unclear:

  • To whom does the teacher give consent?
  • What exactly does this consent cover?

The legal materials provide guidance:

  • If a status determination procedure has been carried out, the approval is directed at the insurance provider.
  • Without a procedure, a declaration to the educational institution is sufficient.

It also remains unclear whether the consent must also cover the actual job description or only the contractual situation. There is no clear legal definition.

 

What educational institutions should do now

The extension of the deadline is an invitation to leave everything as it is. That would be risky. Insurance providers will check carefully after the end of the transition period whether the requirements were met. Above all, however, they will check whether the requirements that will apply to the activities of self-employed teachers from January 1, 2028 have been met. Adapted structures must therefore be implemented and effective by this time.

Recommended now:

  • Analyze business model
    Some activities are easier to organize as self-employed than others.
  • Check contractual relationships
    Are tasks, processes and organizational structures clearly defined? Are they consistent with self-employment according to the current legal situation? Are they documented and adequately monitored?
  • Keeping an eye on legal developments
    Further clarifications are still possible. The coalition agreement announces reforms to the status determination procedure, such as faster decisions and more transparency.

The transition rule provides protection, but it is no substitute for a clean structure. The clearer the contractual and deployment models are today, the smoother the transition to the period from 2028 will be.

 

 

Explore #more

23.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

PHP2Shell may trigger legal obligations for companies

Two critical vulnerabilities in the PHP programming language are threatening web applications and digital products worldwide. The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has warned…

20.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest Column in it daily: The Business Judgment Rule and the Use of AI

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents corporate leadership with diverse and far-reaching decisions. These decisions concern not only the selection and deployment of appropriate…

19.10.2026 | In the media

New articles have been published in PERSONALFÜHRUNG

The current issue of PERSONALFÜHRUNG (10–11/2026) features two articles by female experts from KPMG and KPMG Law. In the article “Will AI Save the Day?…

15.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Faster Building Permits – Legal Options for Businesses

Planning and permitting procedures do not always have to delay construction projects. The law provides several options for expediting the process. To take advantage of…

09.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Claims Management for Cyber Incidents: How Insurers Actively Manage Claims

Cyber incidents are among the most complex claims scenarios for insurers. Ransomware attacks, in particular, can paralyze entire IT infrastructures—with enormous financial consequences. Insurers for …

08.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest Column in AUTOHAUS: Consumer Credit Directive: Sales Under New Circumstances

Car dealerships should use the time remaining before the new Consumer Credit Directive takes effect to systematically review their financing and sales processes for regulatory…

08.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Interview with HAUFE: Even If AI Makes a Mistake, the Board of Directors Is Still Liable

AI analyzes, makes recommendations, and helps make decisions. But who bears the consequences if it’s wrong? KPMG Law experts Nikolaus Vincent Manthey and Sabrina Riesenbeck…

30.09.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Mixed-Use Real Estate as an Opportunity for Downtown Areas

Downtown areas should be vibrant, sustainable, and attractive. But the traditional business model behind them—retail—is becoming less and less viable. Rents are high, customers are…

28.09.2026 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law and KPMG are advising Rohde & Schwarz on the acquisitions of NEOSAT and PHYTRONIC

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) and KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (KPMG) advised the Munich-based technology group Rohde & Schwarz on its acquisitions of NEOSAT GmbH…

28.09.2026 | Deal Notifications

KPMG Law and KPMG are advising Diehl Defence on the acquisition of the Dr. Carls aerial imagery database

KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (KPMG Law) and KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft (KPMG) advised Diehl Defence on its acquisition of the aerial imagery database Dr. Carls GmbH.…

Contact

Friederike Begemann

Associate

Münzgasse 2
04107 Leipzig

Tel.: +49 341 22572 581
fbegemann@kpmg-law.com

Dr. Sebastian Ulbrich, LL.M.

Senior Manager

THE SQUAIRE Am Flughafen
60549 Frankfurt am Main

Tel.: 069 - 951195 185
sulbrich@kpmg-law.com

© 2026 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll