The Supreme Tax Court has filed a preliminary question with the ECJ on the calculation of the German income tax attributable to foreign source income as the maximum amount of the foreign tax credit.
The ECJ has held that the foreign tax imputation credit on a dividend received from abroad is the lower of the corporation tax shown to have been paid abroad and the income tax due on the dividend by recipient.
The finance ministry has decreed that all assessments in which the foreign tax credit is less than that actually borne are to be issued provisionally pending a change in the law to reflect personal allowances in the calculation. Taxpayers may apply for a stay of execution on any amount at issue.
The Supreme Tax Court has followed an ECJ judgment in basing the maximum foreign tax credit on the total German tax payable on the foreign income as calculated under the assumption that personal allowances and reliefs are first set against the domestic income. The court also held the “per country” limitation to be in accordance with community law.
The Lower Tax Court of Rhineland Palatinate has asked the ECJ to rule on the income adjustment provision of the Foreign Tax Act as amended in 2003 as it might not be in accordance with EU-law. The focus of the judicial review is on the tax consequences of a business relationship with a related party and where the terms do not meet the third party comparison test. The ECJ advocate general has suggested the court decide that the German rules for profit adjustment under Sec. 1 Foreign Tax Act are not in violation of the freedom of establishment.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that a treaty provision calling for double tax relief for aircrew by foreign tax credit as opposed to the exemption method for other professions does not offend against the equal rights provision of the constitution.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that the hedge costs on a foreign currency loan are to be deducted from the interest received in calculating the net foreign income as the basis for the foreign tax credit available.
The finance ministry has decreed that Supreme Tax Court judgments limiting the income adjustments under the Foreign Tax Act to questions of amount are not to be followed as precedents prohibiting adjustments by reason of the nature of the transaction under review.
In a decision published today, the Supreme Tax Court held that Section 1 (5) Foreign Tax Act does not constitute an independent rule for determining permanent establishment profits. General allocation methods such as the cost-plus method require a clear legal basis - otherwise they are inadmissible.
The ECJ has held that freedoms of establishment and of capital movement preclude national legislation relieving foreign tax by credit as opposed to the exemption of domestic source income where the actual corporation tax paid by domestic companies is generally less than the nominal rate. It has also accepted the freedom of capital movement as relevant, unless the national legislation was aimed at controlling interests.
The regional tax court of Rhineland-Palatinate had to decide whether, in the case of a right to choose between two methods of reducing foreign withholding tax, the taxpayer must ensure that foreign taxes are credited in as small an amount as possible. The regional tax court is of the opinion that it is at the discretion of the taxpayer if and how to use the option to which he is entitled and that this does not have an adverse impact on the general possibility of a foreign tax credit against his German income tax liability.
In its decision of 3 June 2025, (IX R 39/21 - published on 20 No-vember 2025), the Supreme Tax Court referred the "switch-over" in Section 20 (2) Foreign Tax Act (“FTA”) to the ECJ: de-nial of DTA exemption for passive and low-taxed foreign per-manent establishments and partnerships. The core question of the referral is whether it should be possible for the taxpayer – in the context of CFC taxation under Section 7 FTA et seq. – to provide "counter-evidence" in accordance with Section 8 (2) FTA.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that credit for foreign gift tax is limited to the amount paid in the year of each gift. Lost credit in a prior year cannot be recovered against the higher tax now payable by reason of a higher progressive rate.
Part of the fee payable by the foreign client which is initially retained in anticipation of a potential foreign withholding tax liability of the German self-employed contractor is not immediately subject to income tax in the hands of the latter. According to a ruling of the Supreme Tax Court, the fee withheld is only subject to German income tax if the foreign customer settles the foreign (withholding)tax liability incurred on the total amount of the agreed fees.
When determining the amount of foreign withholding tax credit against German income or corporation tax, expenses for future earnings are not to be included in the calculation, which - in the case of dispute before the Supreme Tax Court- improved the plaintiffs tax credit potential. This decision of the Supreme Tax Court contrasts with the view held by the tax authorities.
The Berlin-Brandenburg Tax Court decided that the relevant double tax agreement with the US requires US withholding tax on dividends to be credited against German trade tax even though the Trade Tax Act does not contain any provisions equivalent to the tax credit rules for corporation tax. It is interesting to note that the Hesse Tax Court had already decided likewise in a decision from February 2021.
In a most recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that the restriction for exemption from taxation of the retained income of foreign foundations with their management or registered office in a member state of the European Union or a contracting state of the EEA to be in conflict with the EU free movement of capital.
The Federal Ministry of Finance (MoF) has revised its guidelines regarding the exchange of information and the associated external audit titled “instruction sheet on cross-border audit cooperation with tax administrations of other countries and territories: joint and simultaneous audits and presence of officials”.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that a Dublin docks reinsurance company that subcontracted its operation under a management agreement was an active business within the meaning of the Foreign Tax Act.
