Churches themselves determine who is a member of the church within the limits of the constitution. The Supreme Tax Court overturned the assessment of Protestant church tax because the tax court of first instance had not sufficiently examined the issue of re-admission.
The retroactive application of Section 13b (10) Inheritance and Gift Tax Act to gifts made prior to the publication of the revised version of the law on 9 November 2016 does not raise any constitutional doubts according to a most recently published judgment of the Supreme Tax Court.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court established legal certainty for parents who, as part of an anticipated succession plan, agree with their children during their lifetime on a waiver of the statutory share of the inheritance in exchange for a lump-sum payment. The judges at the highest tax court made it clear that such lump-sum payments, even if paid in installments, are not subject to tax as capital investment income or other income.
The mandatory restriction of the use of assets (dedication of assets) of a charitable institution is fulfilled if the statutes either specify the tax-privileged purpose in detail or sufficiently designate another tax-privileged corporation or legal entity under public law to which the assets are to be transferred for tax-privileged purposes after the dissolution or termination of the corporation or if its previous purpose has ceased to exist. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a recently published judgment.
In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court clarified that, in the context of a silent partnership in a limited liability company, even a high degree of co-entrepreneurial initiative cannot establish the full status of a co-entrepreneur without at least a minimal co- entrepreneurial risk.
In two most recently published decisions the Supreme Tax Court commented on the VAT situation in the event of the sale of a business which is not turnover within the meaning of the VAT Act under certain circumstances. The court denied VAT exemption in both cases, namely where - after the sale - the business is continued by the lessee and where facilities in a solar park are transferred to various purchasers while continuing to feed electricity into the grid.
In its decision I R 37/22 of 5 November 2025, published on 12 March 2026, the Supreme Tax Court addresses the implementation of profit transfer agreements under Section 14(1), first sentence, no. 3, first sentence of the Corporation Tax Act. In particular, the Supreme Tax Court comments for the first time on the temporal requirements for the actual implementation of the profit transfer agreement.
In three cases and following oral proceedings on 12 November 2025, the Supreme Tax Court held that using the capitalized earnings value method for the valuation of residential property to determine the land tax from January 1, 2025, to be constitutional.
In a most recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the VAT situation regarding membership fees for non-profit sports clubs and held that they may be subject to VAT. However, it must be verified whether the sports club provides its members with a single service or several separate services, and whether this constitutes a tax-exempt transaction or one subject to VAT.
In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the issue of recognizing prior ownership periods in the case of a qualified share exchange during the year with respect to the relief for dividends on qualifying holdings (trade tax intercompany dividend privilege). The court rejected a deduction of the dividend from the trade tax basis because the cut-off date “at the beginning of the period of levy” applicable under Section 9 (2a) TTA was not met since the plaintiff did not yet hold an interest in V GmbH at the beginning of the assessment period.
The failure to tax the deemed capital gain under Section 17 (1) Sentence 2 Income Tax Act at the level of the shareholder in the case of a hidden contribution of shares in a corporation is not a reduction in income as provided in Section 8 (3) Sentence 4 Corporation Tax Act which would otherwise result in an increase in taxable income. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a recently published judgment.
The Supreme Tax Court has commented on the requirements for an item of daily use and decided that the profit/loss from the sale of high-priced everyday items is not taxable as capital gain from "private disposals" (Section 23 (1) No. 2 Sentence 2 Income Tax Act).
In a judgment published today the Supreme Tax Court clarified that companies can cover the costs of farewell parties for departing employees without incurring tax disadvantages as long as the event is organized as a company event.
In a decision published in April 2025 the Supreme Tax Court held that the effective day on which the actual activities are carried out by a partnership is relevant to determine the begin of its trade tax liability.
In the case of the partial transfer of individual business assets pursuant to Section 6 (5) Sentence 3 No. 2 Income Tax Act, the taxable profit is not to be determined by adhering to the so-called strict separation theory but rather according to the modified separation theory with proportional allocation of the book value up to the amount of the partial consideration. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a most recently published judgment.
In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court has, in some aspects, facilitated the tax recognition of employee-financed pension commitments for shareholder managing directors of a limited liability company (GmbH) but at the same time it also set some limits.
When testing the arm's length nature of the interest rate on a direct pension commitment financed through deferred compensation in favor of a shareholder-employee, the interest rate agreed for the similar pension promise in favor of an employee who is not a shareholder and who is employed in the same company is not a suitable yardstick, the Supreme Tax Court said in a most recently published decision.
In a most recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that the obligation to use the special electronic mailbox also applies if a tax advisor who exercises his right to represent himself or represents a relative files a lawsuit before a tax court as a private individual without referring to his accreditation as a tax advisor.
In a most recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that real estate transfer tax falls due on the acquisition by a company of its own shares if this led to a holding of a little over 95% (90%) of the issued share capital in the hands of one of the shareholders.
If a notary fails to comply with his obligation to notify the tax office of legal transactions with relevance to real estate transfer tax within the two-week period as provided for by law he cannot apply for reinstatement into the status quo ante pursuant to Section 110 of the German Tax Code (AO) with respect to the missed notification deadline. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in three recently published judgments.
