Tax & Legal

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.

In two similar decisions the Supreme Tax Court held that amounts charged for subsequent special requests for a property yet to be built are subject to real estate transfer tax if there is a legal relationship to the original property purchase agreement. These costs are then assessed in a subsequent separate tax notice. However, this does not apply to house connection costs if the property buyer has already agreed to assume these costs in the (original) property purchase agreement.

The payment for an eco-account connected to the property under state law is part of the consideration for the purchase of the property and must be included in the assessment basis for real estate transfer tax. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a most recent judgment.

The ECJ has held that a permanently moored houseboat used as a restaurant can be let free of VAT as immovable property.

If the taxpayer has arranged for the sale of a property to a third party, there is generally no abuse of tax law (abuse of legal forms) if the property was initially transferred to the children free of charge and subsequently sold by the children to the ultimate buyer. According to the decision of the Supreme Tax Court the capital gain is subject to income tax in the hands of the children based on their individual income tax situation.

The finance ministry has amended its VAT Implementation Decree to follow an ECJ ruling that a permanently moored houseboat is to be let as a property.

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 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 ECJ has held that the denial of relief in a member state of residence for a loss made on the sale of property in another member state is not an unjustified restriction on the free movement of capital.

The remuneration for waiving a right of usufruct to a private property is taxable as compensation in accordance with Section 24 No. 1 letter a of the Income Tax Act (ITA) if the owner of the usufruct right at the time of the waiver has actually leased the property and earned taxable income from rental and leasing. According to a recent decision of the Supreme Tax Court, this applies irrespective of whether the taxpayer receiving compensation for lost or foregone income was under legal, economic, or actual pressure at the time the agreement for waiver was concluded.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the VAT exemption waiver on property rentals presupposes that the tenant can clearly separate the area used for taxable turnover from that used for tax-free activity, but the separation does not have to be documented by separate contract.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that the interest income of a German-owned limited partnership in England is taxable in Germany as interest, and not exempt as trading income. The capital gain on the sale of the property is not exempt as taxable in the UK, merely because of the capital allowance claw-back.

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.

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.

The ECJ decided in a polish case that the taxable amount of a contribution of property by one company to the capital of a second company in exchange for shares in the latter must be determined based on the issue price of those shares if the parties mutually agreed to that effect.

The Supreme Tax Court decided that the actual trade tax liability of a real estate trader arises at the earliest with the conclusion of the purchase agreement for a first property. It is only after the completion of the purchase that he is in a position to offer his services on the market.

When determining whether a corporation with a direct interest in the partnership owning real estate is considered a new shareholder within the meaning of Section 1 (2a) sentence 4 of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act because at least 90% of the shares are transferred to new shareholders, only the shareholding in the corporation must be taken into account. In a most current judgment, the Supreme Tax Court held that a previous participation of the new shareholder of the corporation in the partnership owning the real estate is irrelevant in this respect.

In the case of the transfer of assets for partial consideration, the gain is from a private sale and must be allocated into a transaction for consideration and a gratuitous part based on the ratio of the consideration to the market value of the transferred asset. According to the Supreme Tax Court, this also applies if the consideration is below the initial (acquisition) costs.

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.

In a most recent decision, the European Court of Justice held that the German inheritance tax regime that distinguishes between assets located in the domestic territory, in a Member State of the European Union or in the EEA or, alternatively, in a third country, is a restriction on the free movement of capital and cannot be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.