Tax & Legal

A foreign permanent establishment of a legally independent person resident in Germany cannot be viewed as employer. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a recent judgment regarding the double tax treaties with the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Spain, Australia, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Canada, Singapore, Norway, Greece and France.

The Münster Tax Court has rejected an earlier decree of the Federal Ministry of Finance according to which entrepreneurs based abroad who own a rented property located in Germany are treated as being resident in Germany if the otherwise exempt rentals are subject to VAT by way of a waiver pursuant to Section 9 VAT Act.

The European Court of Justice held that a German resident company (limited partnership) has no establishment for VAT purposes in Romania under a service contract with a Romanian group company. The court also addressed the question of the place of performance under the circumstances in the case referred.

In two decisions, the Düsseldorf Tax Court commented on the profit allocation regarding the operation of a transnational pipeline network between Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands through so-called pipeline operating sites which are permanent establishments from a tax point of view.

The requirements for a permanent establishment pursuant to Section 12 sentence 1 German Fiscal Code, which are also characteristic for the concept of a permanent establishment under the double tax treaty with the United Kingdom, are met if the person providing the service (here: an aircraft mechanic/engineer) is given only restricted use of site-related business facilities (here: locker and safe deposit box in common rooms on the airport premises) in the course of his services (here: maintenance work on aircraft). This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a most recent judgment.

The owner of a business has a permanent establishment at the fixed place of business of his client if he continuously works there, even if he has his own permanent establishment at a different place. After the revision of the tax law on travel expenses as of 2014, the first place of work is primarily determined based on the employee's contractual assignment or by internal instructions of the employer.

In a recent judgment the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that a German company does not maintain a fixed establishment through its Romanian subsidiary where the latter actively promoted the products of the German company in Romania based on marketing, advertising and regulatory strategies established and developed by the German parent.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the reverse charge is applicable to the leasing of real property located in Austria because the Jersey based lessor, in lieu of own local staff to perform services relating to the letting, does not have a permanent establishment (fixed place of business) in Austria.

The Supreme Tax Court refused to overturn the tax court’s decision to refuse leave to appeal, agreeing with the lower court that a locker can constitute a fixed place of business within the meaning of Article XI Paragraph 1 of the German/British double tax treaty.

On December 22, 2016 the finance ministry has finally published its detailed administrative principles on the allocation of profits between a business and its foreign branches.

The ECJ has confirmed a German provision for the recapture of foreign branch losses previously deducted on sale of the foreign permanent establishment.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the profit from the release of a provision no longer required arising from a foreign permanent establishment long after closure falls under the business profits clause of the relevant double tax treaty and is thus taxable in the foreign country.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that a foreign PE loss that for all practical purposes cannot be offset in its country of origin can be offset in German as the country of the head office.

The finance ministry has published a draft of its ordinance on permanent establishment profits following the authorised OECD approach.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the corporation tax rate on the permanent establishment income of non-EU foreign companies under the old, pre-2001 system was acceptable under community law and the double tax treaty.