In its sitting on 2 June 2017 the Bundesrat (the Upper House) approved the legislation which the government introduced at the end of last year following the publication of the Panama Papers. Continue reading
Tax & Legal
Payments made to a purchaser to compensate for a poor economic position following the transfer of an interest in a partnership may not be deducted from the domestic tax base to the extent they are attributable to a foreign branch (i.e. a permanent establishment for tax treaty purposes) of the partnership. In its decision the Supreme Tax Court cited a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) from 2015.
In 1999 the appellant, a GmbH, assigned its interest in a limited partnership (“the KG”) to the second limited partner. The KG held an Italian branch. The Italian branch had incurred losses in the years 1996 to 1998, which were separately assessed under Section 2a (3) Income Tax Act. Due to the expected losses of the KG, the plaintiff agreed in the course of the transfer to pay a compensation payment. This compensation payment was partially attributable to the Italian branch.
The tax office treated that part of the compensation payment attributable to the Italian branch as a non-deductible expense. Further it took the view that the relevant conditions had been met to reincorporate the Italian branch losses, which had been deducted in earlier tax years.
The tax court allowed the appellant’s appeal with regard to the deductibility of the expense. However the Supreme Tax Court reversed this decision. The compensation payment could neither be deducted as business expense nor could it be deducted as a so-called “final” loss. The decisive issue was the so-called “symmetry thesis”, according to which the tax treaty exemption of foreign income was attached to both positive and negative income. ECJ and Supreme Tax Court case law has ruled up to now that, due to the freedom of establishment rule, a loss deduction from the corporation tax base should be possible if and to the extent that the taxpayer can prove that the losses are “final” losses, namely they cannot, under any circumstances, be utilized by the foreign branch for a tax set-off. The Supreme Tax Court applied this rule not only to circumstances where the losses could no longer actually be utilized in the source state but also to circumstances where, whilst the loss utilisation was theoretically still possible in the other state, in reality it could just about be excluded and where such a loss deduction abroad became available contrary to expectations, it would, from an administrative law point of view, still be open to the German tax authorities to make a subsequent adjustment.
The ECJ has, however, in the meantime revised this case law. In its decision of 17 December 2015 (C-388/14 Timac Agro Deutschland), the ECJ held that, where there was no objectively comparable domestic situation, no concerns should arise from an EU law point of view, where a Member State, in the event of a transfer by a resident company of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, excludes the possibility, for the resident company, of taking into account in its tax base the losses of the establishment transferred where, under a double taxation convention, the exclusive power to tax the profits of that establishment lies with the Member State in which the establishment is situated.
Whilst the Supreme Tax Court sees dogmatic doubt in the Timac Agro Deutschland decision, in the instant case it followed the view of the ECJ and refused a further referral to that court.
Citation: Supreme Tax Court decision of 22 February 2017 (I R 2/15), published on 17 May 2017
On 29 May 2017 the Council of the EU formally and unanimously adopted the Council Directive amending Directive (EU) 2016/1164 as regards hybrid mismatches with third countries (ATAD II). Continue reading
The German Constitutional Court held that the rules for curtailment of loss relief on change of shareholders to be in breach of the formal provisions of the constitution under the principle of equal treatment insofar as changes of more than 25% and up to 50% of the shares in a company within a period of five years are concerned. Continue reading
In a dispute between Germany and Austria on the right of taxation of payments from registered certificates an ECJ advocate general has suggested that such interest should be taxed only in the country of residence of the beneficial owner unless such debt-claims explicitly provide the creditor with a participation in the debtor’s profits. Continue reading
In a recent decision the Supreme Tax Court dealt with the provision of services by public bodies under German VAT law. If the economic activities of a public body are not outstanding and distinct from its overall activities it is not a taxable business for VAT and thus not eligible to deduct input VAT incurred on the underlying costs. Continue reading
A company dealing in the field of electronic data processing served its competitors with prior written warnings due to violations of general business terms and conditions and received reimbursement of the expenses incurred. The tax office assumed a taxable service being subject to VAT. The Supreme Tax Court confirmed this view. Continue reading
The Supreme Tax Court held that the commitment to enter a rental agreement is a VAT exempt service. Continue reading
The International VAT/GST Guidelines now published present a set of internationally agreed standards and recommended approaches to address the issues that arise from the uncoordinated application of national VAT systems in the context of international trade. The Guidelines were adopted as a Recommendation by the Council of the OECD in September 2016. Continue reading
The German Finance Ministry has commented on possible profit adjustments under Sec. 1 Foreign Tax Act with respect to the use of group name and logo between the taxpayer and a related party. Continue reading