Tax & Legal

The German rules on the procedure and documentation requirements for withholding tax refunds to non-resident portfolio shareholders are not compatible with the EU principles on the free movement of capital, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said in a most recent decision.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that a foreign business required to file a VAT return for the year, does so for the full year. Its input tax can therefore be recovered in full.

If it has been revealed during an external tax audit that a large portion of dividend payments from shares were part of so-called short sales and thus the withholding of capital gains tax appears doubtful (here: as being in connection with cum-ex trading), the tax office is entitled to revoke the tax credit granted earlier and reclaim the tax refund from the taxpayer. This was decided by the Tax Court of Hesse following a complaint regarding the suspension of payment.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that interest received on a tax refund due is taxable income despite the non-deductibility of interest payable on an outstanding liability.

The Supreme Tax Court has held that an aircraft operator qualifies for energy tax refund on the fuel used for flying goods and freight for group companies even if it does not hold a licence to operate an airline.

If a tax privilege which is optional under EU law was wrongfully not granted, and where the taxpayer therefore was forced to make advance tax payments, interest is payable on the eventual tax refund claim. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a case where the tax office refused to apply the reduced electricity tax rate on the quantity of electricity drawn in respect of the plaintiff’s own consumption.

Prior to the announcement on 21 March 2019 that Brexit may be postponed until either 12 April 2019, 22 May 2019 or possibly later, the British tax and customs authorities (HMRC) issued guidance on 18 March 2019 on the changes to VAT IT systems in the event of the United Kingdom leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal.

In its decision of 28 July 2021, the Federal Court of Justice held that claiming a refund or credit of withholding tax in the wake of cum-ex schemes is a criminal act of tax evasion. The proceeds obtained in these illegal transactions and the benefits derived therefrom may be collected.

The Italian Supreme Court issued seven important judgments in which it ruled that Italian withholding taxes levied on dividends distributed to a German investment fund and six US investment funds are in violation of the EU principles on the free movement of capital (Article 63 (TFEU).

The Supreme Tax Court has held that a taxpayer cannot claim forgiveness of the interest due on the tax payment following a transfer pricing adjustment on the grounds that an associated company had no claim for interest receivable on the corresponding adjustment in its home country.

The Supreme Tax Court has followed an ECJ case in holding that a foreign corporate shareholder may claim from the local tax office a refund of the tax deducted at source from its dividend.

In 2010 the Supreme Tax Court changed its position and ruled that interest on refunds of non-deductible taxes to be tax-free. In the meantime the court has again been invited to decide whether the subsequent retroactive change in law by the German tax administration to restore the old situation is in line with the constitution.

In a most recent decision, the Regional Tax Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the claim of a Japanese corporation for a refund of withholding tax on the grounds that the case was within the scope of the EU principles for freedom of establishment which the plaintiff, being a resident of a third country, could not invoke.

The Regional Tax Court of Munich rendered its final decision in the case of the College Pension Plan of British Columbia which is a pension fund in the legal form of a trust under Canadian law. The court held that the pension fund is not entitled to relief from withholding tax on dividends from domestic portfolio holdings. The court saw no violation of the free movement of capital. This judgment was preceded by a decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as a result of a preliminary request submitted by the Munich tax court.

The Supreme Tax Court held in its ruling of 10 December 2019 (IX R 23/18) that a final tax assessment can no longer be corrected by the tax office under Section 129 of the German Tax Code (“GTC” - obvious errors while issuing administrative acts) if the incorrect assessment of a capital gain whisch was correctly declared by the taxpayer under 17 of the German Income Tax Act was not based on a mere "mechanical error".

In a decision published on 26 November 2021, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht,) declared as inadmissible a referral by the Supreme Tax Court (Bundesfinanzhof) regarding Section 3 of the Solidarity Surcharge Act 1995 as amended on October 15, 2002 (SSA, 1995).

In his Opinion of 20 January 2022, the Advocate General (AG) suggests to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that Germany’s requirements for withholding tax claims filed by non-resident corporate taxpayers with seat or place of management in the EU or EEA are too strict in two respects and thus in violation of Article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital.

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.

Foreign companies as shareholders that are eligible for a refund of withholding tax in accordance with Art. 5 of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive are entitled to interest under EU law if the refund of the tax amounts is withheld from them in violation of EU law or if - for the same reason - tax is withheld from the outset. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a recent judgment.

In a decision on two joint cases published today the Constitutional Court decided that interest incurred on late payment of taxes (back taxes) and the interest paid for tax refunds pursuant to Sections 233a and 238(1) sentence 1 of the German Fiscal Code is not in line with the German Constitution insofar as the interest rate is set at 0.5% per month and for interest periods from 1 January 2014.