According to a recent judgment of the Supreme Tax Court, Section 2 (4) sentence 3 of the Reorganization Tax Act also prevents offsetting positive income generated during the retroactive period by the transferring legal entity with a loss carry-back of the acquiring legal entity from the following (post-merger) year.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that the 1999 introduction of “minimum taxation” rules limiting loss offset by income type do not apply to a 1999 loss carried back to 1998.
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 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.
The Cologne Tax Court held in its decision (10 V 1706/18) published on 15 January 2020, that the wording of Section 8d (1) Sentence 5 of the Act did not contain a cut-off period according to which the application under Section 8d (1) CTA for continuance-bound loss carry-forwards must be filed in the first tax return - and only there.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that a downstream, but not an upstream, merger leads to new assets for the surviving entity that can imperil its loss carry forward.
In its decision of 12 May 2016 the Supreme Tax Court held that -in the case of a two-tier partnership structure- the trade tax loss carry-forward of the lower-tier partnership is fully eliminated, if the upper-tier partnership, which holds a 100% -interest in the income and assets of the lower-tier partnership, is merged down-stream and thus ceases to exist. Referring to previous case law, the Court’s reasoning was that the upper-tier partnership, as co-entrepreneur of the lower-tier partnership, was also the holder of the partnership’s trade tax loss-relief.
Section 15b Income Tax Act dealing with the restriction of loss utilization for tax deferral models does not presuppose that an investment is not economically sensible or has not proved particularly successful. The restriction for an offset and deduction of losses from tax deferral models is also constitutional in the case of a so-called definitive loss. This was currently decided by the Supreme Tax Court who hereby confirmed its previous case law on this matter.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that unused loss relief may only pass to transferee under the Reconstructions Tax Act up to December 12, 2006 if the loss making business was still held by the transferor on date of transfer.
In a Portuguese request for a preliminary ruling, the ECJ dealt with the question of the deadline when applying for a refund or carry over of a VAT surplus. In the case of dispute, the application for carry over was only made after the resumption of the previously discontinued economic activity.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court held that the loss offset restrictions of Section 15b of the Income Tax Act would come into effect if the investor did not actively participate in the project. This also applies if the initiator of a tax deferral model, as a founding partner, participates on the same terms as the other investors.
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 held that the income tax payable on the compensation for loss of earnings which was subsequently reimbursed by the tortfeasor (injuring party) is subject to income tax in the hands of the injured party.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that an upstream merger leads to new assets in the accounts of the parent (surviving entity) and thus to forfeiture of that company’s remaining loss carry-forward if the new assets are substantial.
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.
Under certain conditions, changes in shareholders and the admission of new investors will in future be possible without giving rise to a forfeiture of losses carried-forward. On 23 December 2016 the Act for the Further Development of Tax Loss Utilisation for Corporations was published after having been adopted by the German Parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) on 20 December 2016.
The remuneration paid to managing directors for the management of a partnership limited by shares (KGaA) must be added back for trade tax purposes even where the KGaA concluded an employment contract directly with the managing directors who each are limited partners of a limited partnership (GmbH & Co. KG), which itself is the general partner of KGaA (the plaintiff). According to the Supreme Tax Court, such "third-party employment" does not reduce the amount of add-back when determining the KGaA's trading income if the KG is entitled to a corresponding claim for compensation by its articles of association.
The Federal Ministry of Finance has sent the draft of a Ministry circular on the application of Section 8d of the Corporation Tax Act (CTA) – continuance-bound loss carry-forward after loss forfeiture - to the professional associations for comment.
In a most recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that the rental of advertising mediums paid by a service company might be added back for trade tax purposes provided the assets were to be fixed assets had the company itself been the owner.
