Under Section 13 (1) No. 4c of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act a family home may be transferred tax-free from a parent to a child upon the parent’s death if the parent lived there personally prior to death, the child moves in immediately after the death, and the living area does not exceed 200 square meters. According to the Supreme Tax Court, even a jointly used garden and associated pathways may be eligible for tax exemption.
In a decision on 24 June 2026 and published on 20 August 2026, the German Supreme Tax Court addressed the tension between domestic tax law rules on hidden profit distributions and international tax treaty protections under the Germany-Cyprus Double Taxation Agreement (DBA) 2011.
The daily allowance paid under the Swiss statutory accident insurance is a tax-exempt benefit comparable to sick pay under Book Five of the Social Code and is therefore subject to the progression proviso for taxpayers with unlimited tax liability pursuant to Section 32b (1) Sentence 1 Number 1 Lett. K of the Income Tax Act. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a most recent judgment.
If a partner leaves the partnership, his or her share of the trading loss ceases to exist. A legal successor who assumes the partner’s share cannot utilize this portion of the loss due to a lack of entrepreneurial identity. The reason for the withdrawal is irrelevant, the Supreme Tax Court said in a most recently published decision.
Beneficiaries of a bequest may also claim the lump-sum deduction for estate-related expenses under Section 10 (5) Number 3 Sentence 2 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. According to a most recently published decision of the Supreme Tax Court, this lump-sum allowance must not be reduced if the inheritance received by the other heirs is not subject to German taxation.
To the extent that the minimum tax results in definitive taxation resulting from an ‘inverse accounting effect’, equitable relief measures under Section 163 of the General Tax Code should be given serious consideration, the Supreme Tax Court said in a most recently published decision.
The Supreme Tax Court addressed the VAT treatment of an agreement between a temporary employment agency (the lender) and the client regarding the use of cafeterias by the temporary workers. The agreements - which were set forth in a single uniform contract - do not give rise to taxable services provided for consideration.
In a most recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that it is not possible to demonstrate that a co-ownership in a plot of land valued at the proven lower fair market value is worth less than the calculated share of the fair market value of the entire plot.
In a recently published ruling, the Supreme Tax Court has referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on whether a remotely controlled technical drying plant located in Germany constitutes a ‘fixed establishment’ within the meaning of the VAT System Directive, where the operator does not employ its own staff and subcontractors are instead working on site.
In most recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that there are no special circumstances that would allow for a retroactive determination of a carryover of donations in the year the donation was made if the correct application was not filed. However, without a separate determination, it is no longer possible to utilize the carryover in the following nine tax assessment years.
In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court decided that an heir’s challenge to the receipt of a tax assessment notice, in his or her capacity as legal successor, can only disrupt the presumption of notification laid down in Section 122 (2) Number 1 of the General Tax Code if there are credible facts that raise specific and well-founded doubts regarding the circumstances of receipt.
In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that the disallowance to deduct special business expenses under Section 4i Sentence 1 of the German Income Tax Act for partnerships with foreign partners may also apply to cases of Dutch group taxation. Furthermore, it is not only important whether a formal deduction for business expenses is made abroad, but also whether the expenses economically reduce the taxable income abroad.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that, for a sub-participation of a share in a corporation - whether in the form of a typical or atypical sub-participation - the tax assessment basis is not to be determined separately and uniformly.
The German Supreme Tax Court has referred a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) concerning the compatibility of German tax law with the EU Merger Directive's tax-neutrality provisions (Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/133/EC). The key issue is whether a Member State can impose a flat-rate non-deductibility rule on business expenses—specifically, a 5% add-back of tax-exempt merger gains resulting from a parent company absorbing its subsidiaries.
IIn a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court held that a company can claim input VAT incurred on consulting and legal fees in connection with pursuing claims for damages (in this case, due to the cancellation of a car toll project) because the claim for compensation arose from a planned commercial activity and thus the underlying costs are, from a VAT point of view, business-related expenses.
In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that, despite its professional qualification status, paramedic training does not constitute a completion of initial vocational training which is detrimental for granting the child benefit.
In its judgement of 18 March 2026 ( III R 20/24), the Supreme Tax Court clarified the requirements for proving a willingness to undertake vocational training under child benefit law. The court thereby confirmed the strict line that a mere assertion that a child is willing to undertake vocational training is not sufficient to establish an entitlement to child benefit.
If a natural person engages in multiple commercial activities, these activities may be considered as one business or as multiple independent businesses either because the activities are of the same type or different in nature. As the Supreme Tax Court pointed out in a most recently published judgment, this depends on the economic, organizational, and financial circumstances.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that a participant in tax evasion - here: as assistant - cannot be held liable through a notice of liability. The exception from the exemption from liability as provided in Section 191 (5) Sentence 2 of the General Tax Code in cases where the tax assessed is statute-barred applies only to those who have personally committed tax evasion or tax fraud.
In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that a fee may be charged for each individual request for binding advance ruling and that the number of requests is determined by the underlying facts as a single course of events. The judges further concluded that the fees for providing the requested information are not subject to the statute of limitations and the collection of these fees is not unconstitutional, even if the requested advance ruling is denied.
