The free movement of capital under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is not violated if the tax treatment of a donation to a foundation based in the Swiss Confederation is subject to national requirements that apply in the Member State of the donor. According to the Supreme Tax Court, the national legislature is not obliged to recognize the charitable status under foreign law.
The Supreme Tax Court decided that a secondary (ancillary) activity to the holding and management of own property which is not expressly permitted by Section 9 No. 1 Sentence 2 Trade Tax Act (in the case in dispute: keeping classic cars for the purpose of appreciation of value), can also preclude an extended trade tax deduction even if no income is generated.
The supply of electricity to tenants is an independent main service and distinct from the otherwise tax-free rental, and the VAT from the purchase of the photovoltaic systems is deductible for the landlord as input VAT.
In a most recent judgment, the European Court of Justice addressed the issue whether VAT on mandatory healthcare equipment for tax-exempt services can be proportionally deducted if those items are also used for additional taxable services. The decision suggests that a statutory obligation to purchase goods and services doesn't automatically grant deduction, but that proportional deduction is possible if a direct link to taxable activities exists.
Towards the end of 2024 the Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF) commented in some detail on the input VAT deduction for credit institutions. The ministerial pronouncement focuses on the attribution of input transactions to output transactions and the relevant input VAT allocation in accordance with Section 15 (4) VAT Act. Another focus of the MoF circular is on cross-border structures and specifically the services between local branches and their foreign head office and vice versa.
In a most recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that an invoice for advance payment entitles the recipient to deduct the underlying input VAT even if it does not include an explicit reference as to the “advance payment” and provided it is apparent that the payment is made for a service still to be supplied.
According to a judgment of the Supreme Tax Court, the extended trade tax deduction pursuant to Section 9 No. 1 Sentence 2 of the Trade Tax Act is not available if a corporation has sold all of its real estate one day before the end of the assessment period (in the case of dispute: “at the beginning of 31 December”) because it was not exclusively and continuously active in real estate management during the whole assessment period.
A sale of five multi-family properties at the same time (“en bloc sale”) in the third year after acquisition is detrimental to the extended trade tax deduction as it violates the established three-property limit within a five-year period. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a most recent judgment.
According to a decision of the Supreme Tax Court, commercial property trading - which is harmful for the extended trade tax deduction - may be precluded under specific circumstances of the individual case if neither property sales nor preparatory measures are carried out within the five-year period and several property sales occur only in the sixth year.
If a taxpayer who has incurred expenses for the maintenance of a historic building used as his or her primary residence dies before the end of the ten-year deduction period, the right to claim the deduction generally does not pass to the heir. With its most recently published decision the Supreme Tax Court confirmed its earlier case law in similar situations.
The Supreme Tax Court held that the input tax on staff outing costs (Christmas get-together) ranking as an employee benefit cannot be deducted. If the employer receives services for so-called staff events, he is only entitled to deduct the input VAT on the underlying costs if the services do not exclusively serve the private needs of the employees of the company but are caused by the special circumstances of the employers’ business activity.
In a most recent judgment following a Polish request for a preliminary ruling, the General Court of the EU confirmed the incompatibility of the local input VAT regulations with EU Law and held that the right to deduct input VAT arises with the supply and the chargeability of the tax, and must not depend on the immediate possession of an invoice provided that the taxable person did receive the invoice before submitting the VAT return. Any national “forced deferral” violates the principle of fiscal neutrality.
A professional soldier was convicted of a criminal offense and also had to undergo military disciplinary proceedings. At least he can deduct the legal costs of the disciplinary proceedings as income related expenses, the Supreme Tax Court said in a most recent decision.
The Supreme Tax Court decided that the portfolio dividends received by the controlled company within a tax group from domestic and foreign corporations via an investment fund are subject to trade tax in full. A deduction of foreign withholding taxes in accordance with Section 34c (2) of the German Income Tax Act is not possible when determining the trade income tax basis of the tax consolidation group (Organschaft).
The dispute before the Supreme Tax Court concerned the question of whether the tax office was correct to adjust an input VAT deduction of the plaintiff - following a successful appeal under insolvency law - where the plaintiff later received a refund of the import VAT paid. The court could not see any reasons why the plaintiff should receive a refund even though it no longer owed the tax.
Following a preliminary request from Romania, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had to deal with the refusal of the local tax authorities on the right to input VAT deduction if services are not used for taxable transactions. Specifically, it refers to the VAT deduction for intercompany consultancy and administrative services with a supplier located in a country different than Romania.
In a most recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that expenses incurred by the taxpayer for moving to another home to set up a separate workplace (for the first time) are not deductible as income-related expenses. This also applies if the taxpayer is forced to work from home - as in times of the coronavirus pandemic - or tries to reconcile work and family life by working from home.
Operating equipment is not part of the real estate for valuation purposes, its joint rental together with the real estate is harmful to the extended trade tax deduction pursuant to Section 9 No. 1 Sentence 2 Trade Tax Act. This also applies if the operating facility is permanently attached to the land or building. The only exception to this rule is if the joint-letting of the operating equipment permanently attached to the land or building is considered a secondary activity that does not affect the tax benefit, the Supreme Tax Court said in a most recent judgment.
The participation of a limited liability company (GmbH) as general partner in a limited (non-trading) real estate managing partnership (KG) does not entitle the GmbH to an extended deduction of the part of income from the administration and use of own real estate within the meaning of Sec. 9 No. 1 2nd Sentence Trade Tax Act if the GmbH does not have a share in the assets of the KG. The Supreme Tax Court held that the general partner GmbH uses and manages third-party property rather than managing own real estate as presupposed by the statutes.
Services from so-called outplacement companies for individual support to permanent and indefinitely employed workers, in particular by means of so-called job application training, to help them find new employment relationships, qualify for an input VAT deduction. According to the Supreme Tax Court the entrepreneur is entitled to deduct input tax based on an overriding business interest while the employee's interest in the outplacement counseling is secondary.
