On 20 December 2016 legislation was passed introducing measures to combat base erosion and profit shifting. A part of this legislation – introduced in the new Section 138a of the General Tax Code – imposed an obligation on multinational enterprises to report annually for each tax jurisdiction in which they do business, so-called Country-by-Country (CbC) reports. On 11 July 2017 the German Ministry of Finance released a circular, which provides some guidelines on the completion of the CbC reports. Continue reading
Tax & Legal
On 7 June 2017 Germany together with the representatives of over 60 countries signed the multilateral convention, which should transpose the main recommendations of the G20/OECD Project against Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS Project) into existing bilateral tax treaties. Continue reading
In its sitting on 2 June 2017 the Bundesrat (the Upper House) approved the Act to Combat Harmful Tax Practices in connection with the Licensing of Rights. The new legislation is intended to prevent multinational businesses from transferring their royalty income to countries, which offer such income preferential treatment. Such preferential tax regimes (so-called Licence Boxes, Patent Boxes or IP-Boxes) are considered not to meet the demands of the OECD and G20 BEPS Project. The new provision should be applied to expenses arising after 31 December 2017 and is to be introduced by way of a new provision in the Income Tax Act (ITA). Continue reading
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
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
The tax authorities have now published the final Ministry of Finance circular answering questions in connection with the application of the exchange of financial information and the FACTA agreement. The draft versions of the circular had previously been released and these are now in a final version.
In the fight against cross-border tax evasion and other practices showing a lack of discipline for tax purposes, the OECD has developed a standard for the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts (CRS – Common Reporting Standard). On 29 October 2014 Germany committed itself – in conjunction with numerous other countries – to implement a system for exchange. The CRS obliges financial institutes to report to the German tax authorities information on financial assets, which are managed in participating countries on behalf of taxpayers. This information is exchanged between the tax authorities of participating states.
The conclusion of the so-called FACTA agreement between the USA and Germany on 31 May 2013 also introduced rules on the automatic exchange of tax relevant data from financial institutes. This was also intended to induce more honesty in tax matters cross-border.
The Ministry of Finance has now produced a 96 page document to clarify the various issues.
Ministry of Finance circular of 1 February 2017 (IV B 6 – S 1315/13/10021:044), published on the Ministry’s home page on 3 March 2017
The federal government and federal states have agreed unanimously upon the criteria for a revision of the tax treatment of existing cum/cum structures. The tax authorities of the federal states could then – according to comprehensive and standardised criteria – attack cum/cum transactions, which were executed before the change in the law as at 31 December 2015.
The agreement was reached when the heads of the tax departments of the respective federal and states Ministries of Finance met in Berlin between 1 and 3 March 2017. A new Ministry of Finance circular will be prepared to implement the decision. The existing Ministry of Finance circular of 11 November 2016 will continue to apply to the beneficial attribution of securities transactions.
On 22 February 2017 the federal government approved a draft bill to implement both the fourth EU money laundering directive and the EU regulation on the transfer of funds as well as to reorganise the Central Financial Transactions Investigation Agency. The intention is to up-date and strengthen measures developed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
The Central Financial Transactions Investigation Agency (“Zentralstelle für Finanztransaktionsuntersuchungen” – “FIU”) will be restructured and will obtain more staff
Previously the FIU was known as the Central Authority for Suspect Reporting (“Zentralamt für Verdachtsmeldungen”) at the Federal Police Department within the Ministry of the Interior. It will now be transferred to the General Customs Directorate, i.e. within the Ministry of Finance. Furthermore its responsibilities and competencies will be revised according to the provisions of the fourth EU directive on money laundering. One area of focus will lie in operative and strategic analysis.
In addition the FIU should, for the first time, have a filter function, the aim of which is to reduce the burden on the prosecution authorities. In future only credible suspicions should be passed on to the prosecutor.
Draft bill lays the foundations for a central electronic transparency register
This is intended to disclose information on the beneficial owners of an enterprise. The aim being more transparency and thus to hinder the abusive use of companies and trusts for the purpose of money laundering and offences underlying it, such as tax evasion and the financing of terrorism. The bureaucracy for businesses should however be kept at a minimum by the utilising information on any interests held already available in existing registers, such as the commercial register.
Penalty levels to be significantly increased
Penalties for serious, repeated and systematic offending are to be significantly increased to secure compliance with the money laundering regulations. Furthermore, in future the authorities will publish all penalty notices, which can no longer be disputed, on their website.
In its last session of the year, the Federal Assembly (Bundesrat) gave its assent today to the Act to Implement the Amendments to the EU Mutual Assistance Directive and to Introduce Further Measures to Combat Profit Reduction and Profit Shifting
This packet of measures, which will come into effect on 1 January 2017, will give almost € 25 billion worth of relief to taxpayers. In particular low earners, families and lone parents will benefit.
The Bundesrat also gave its assent to the law amending the rules regarding the utilisation of losses upon change of control. (See our Blog: http://blogs.pwc.de/german-tax-and-legal-news/2016/12/06/bundesrat-set-to-approve-draft-for-relief-from-curtailment-of-loss-utilization)