The Supreme Tax Court decided that negative income from the financial year in which a harmful acquisition of shares within the meaning of Section 8c Corporation Tax Act takes place is not completely barred as it still can be offset (carried back) against income from the previous year to the extent the losses were incurred prior to the harmful share transfer.
According to a ruling of the Supreme Tax Court, the shareholder (partner) of an asset-managing partnership who has acquired his share for a consideration, can claim depreciation on the jointly owned depreciable assets on a pro rata basis and only in accordance with his acquisition costs and the remaining useful life of the respective asset at the time the share was acquired.
In a most recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that real estate transfer tax falls due on the acquisition by a company of its own shares if this led to a holding of a little over 95% (90%) of the issued share capital in the hands of one of the shareholders.
In a most recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that the first acquisition of a share in a partnership by a party who was not previously a partner under civil law is a taxable event for real estate transfer tax purposes pursuant to Section 1 (2a) of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act (RETTA).
In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court had to determine whether, and under what conditions, the acquisition of a share in a partnership is subject to real estate transfer tax if the interest is held under a trust arrangement and the share is later transferred from the trustee to the trustor.
In a case of the sale of property belonging to the estate of an association of co-heirs the Supreme Tax Court held that the acquisition for consideration of a joint shareholding is not equivalent to the direct pro rata acquisition of the inherited assets themselves. With this most recent judgment the Supreme Tax Court abandons its previous case law on the matter.
The review to determine the taxpayer’s intention at making a profit for income to qualify as business income under Section 17 German Income Tax Act must be with regard to the taxpayer's entire shareholding in the corporation. An isolated analysis based on the single business share sold is not possible. In its current ruling, the Supreme Tax Court also comments on the question of abuse of rights with the intention to create tax losses in a case of increased acquisition costs because of a (paid) premium.
The application pursuant to Section 21 (2) Sentence 3 of the Reorganization Tax Act to use the book value (acquisition cost) or an intermediate value as the sale price of the shares in the case of an exchange of shares does not require any specific formal requirement. It can also be made expressly or implied.
In a recent judgement, the Supreme Tax Court decided that the participation threshold specified in Section 8b (4) Sentence 6 of the German Corporation Tax Act (“CTA”) (10 % of the share capital) can also be attained through an acquisition transaction which is economically uniform from the acquirer's perspective in a situation where several sellers are involved in the transaction.
The ECJ overturned an earlier judgment of the European General Court and held that the German tax legislation concerning the possibility of a loss-carry forward to future tax years despite a harmful share acquisition in cases of a rescue plan to save the company from insolvency – known as the salvage clause - is not illegitimate state aid.
The Lower Tax Court of Muenster held that losses incurred during the year in which a harmful change in shareholding took place can be carried back to the previous tax year.
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.
In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that the profit from the sale of a limited partnership share which is proportionally encumbered with an atypical sub-participation is fully subject to trade tax.
In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court held that the profit from the sale of the share in a project company in the legal form of a partnership (GmbH & Co. KG) is not included in the trading income of the plaintiff, a limited liability company (GmbH), because the conditions for trade tax liability - namely, the operation of a business as defined in Section 2 (1) Sentence 1 of the Trade Tax Act - were not (yet) met.
Tax consultancy expenses incurred in connection with the preparation of the tax return and the determination of the profit from the sale of a shareholding in a corporation are not tax-deductible costs of disposal within the meaning of Section 17(2) sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act.
In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the repurchase of shares in a property-owning company where the previous acquisition was not subject to real estate transfer tax. Another case decided on the same date concerned the annulment of a chargeable transfer (concentration of 100% of the shares in the property-owning company) which later was reversed a second time restoring the initial level of shareholding.
The loss forfeiture rules of Section 8c of the Corporation Tax Act in the version valid for 2014 are not applicable to deductible losses which are allocated to a corporation as partner of a limited partnership pursuant to Section 15a Income Tax Act. With this decision, the Supreme Tax Court contradicts the view of the tax administration.
In a most recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the tax situation of an indirect unification of shares through intermediary partnership in 2012 with respect to the relevant holding for establishing its interest in the related real-estate holding company. The court further held that there is no protection of legitimate expectations with respect to the tax effects of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Tax Court in 2017.
In a most recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that the trade tax addback of a silent partner's profit share is subject to the free movement of capital which also applies to third countries (here: the USA). The application of the "grandfather“ clause of Art 64 TFEU (ex-Article 57 TEC) is generally not affected by statements made in a letter from a lower tax authority.
In an interim decision, dated 9 July 2025 (II B 13/25 (AdV) and published on 31 July 2025, the Supreme Tax Court considered it doubtful, following a summary examination, that in cases where the contractual acquisition transaction (signing) and the transfer of the shares (closing) take place at different times, real estate transfer tax can be assessed twice – namely once upon signing under Section 1(3) No. 1 of the German Real Estate Transfer Tax Act (“RETTA)” (signing) and once upon closing under Section 1(2b) RETTA – if the tax office is aware at the time of assessment for the signing that the closing has already occurred.
