In a recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the retention requirements when determining profits on an accrual accounting basis (Betriebsvermögensvergleich) and using an open cash register, the choice between several possible methods to estimate the tax base (Section 162 Fiscal Code), and the admissibility of an estimate based on the official collection of guiding reference values published by the Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF).
The Ministry of Finance (MoF) has published some information on the so-called transaction matrix pursuant to Section 90 (3) sentence 2 no. 1 Fiscal Code which requires taxpayers to keep records of the nature and the content of their business relationships within the meaning of Section 1 (4) of the Foreign Tax Act.
The correction of a final tax assessment notice pursuant to Section 50d (8) sentence 2 of the German Income Tax Act is only possible if – contrary to the provision in the double tax treaty - the employment income of an unlimited taxpayer has been wrongly included in the income tax assessment by omitting to produce proper documentation as required in Section 50d (8) Income Tax Act. It follows from this decision of the Supreme Tax Court that the possibilities of amending tax assessment under Section 50d (8) sentence 2 Income Tax Act are strictly limited and only apply in exceptional cases.
The action brought by Meta Platforms Ireland (Facebook group) against a request from the EU-Commission for release of documents identified by means of search terms or by way of specific keywords was dismissed by the European General Court.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that the German penalty surcharge for failure to present proper documentation in cross border business relations is in line with the EU principle of freedom of establishment. Although there is a restriction because the documentation requirements and the associated penalty only apply to taxpayers engaged in business relationships with related parties abroad, the measures are proportionate, don’t go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued and are necessary to ensure a balanced taxation powers between Member States.
The German rules on the procedure and documentation requirements for withholding tax refunds to non-resident portfolio shareholders are not compatible with the EU principles on the free movement of capital, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said in a most recent decision.
In his Opinion of 20 January 2022, the Advocate General (AG) suggests to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that Germany’s requirements for withholding tax claims filed by non-resident corporate taxpayers with seat or place of management in the EU or EEA are too strict in two respects and thus in violation of Article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that the required documentation in support of a tax-free intra-community supply cannot be substituted by other evidence.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that internal or other restrictions on the excise of ownership rights do not obviate an association by common shareholding of more than 25%. It has also held that the application of the transfer pricing documentation rules to cross-border transactions only is, while discriminatory, justified by the need to protect tax revenue.
