In the case of double household abroad, it must be decided through an overall assessment of the objective circumstances of the individual case whether and to what extent accommodation costs are necessary. However, the Supreme Tax Court held in the case of an official residence assigned under civil service law that the actual amount of accommodation costs at the foreign place of employment are always deductible as income-related double household expenses.
The Supreme Tax Court decided that the transfer of real estate from a community of heirs to a partnership in the context of the division of the estate is exempt from real estate transfer tax up to the share in which a co-heir participates in the acquiring partnership. The tax exemption does not apply if the co-heir's share in the partnership decreases within five years following the transfer.
The Supreme Tax Court decided that the contribution of all shares in an indirectly property-owning company by a corporation under Irish law to the plaintiff against consideration is subject to real estate transfer tax pursuant to Section 1 (3) Real Estate Transfer Tax Act. The exemption on intra-group restructures (conversions) under Section 6a Real Estate Transfer Tax Act was not available.
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.
In a most recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that the unification of shares resulting from the transfer of shares in a property-owning corporation to a Dutch foundation is not exempt from real estate transfer tax pursuant to Section 5 (1) RETT Act if the comparison of legal types reveals that the legal structure of the foundation is not comparable to a joint ownership under German law.
The gratuitous transfer of a life insurance policy (transfer of contract) is subject to gift tax at the time of the transfer and must be assessed for tax at its surrender value. Any usufruct retained by the donor does not take effect before the life insurance policy is terminated.
According to a recent judgment of the Supreme Tax Court, the gratuitous transfer of shares to senior employees to secure continuity in succession is not taxable as income from employment. The court further noted that there was no automatic presumption that a share transfer to an employee was made in consideration for employee services rendered.
In its decision I R 37/22 of 5 November 2025, published on 12 March 2026, the Supreme Tax Court addresses the implementation of profit transfer agreements under Section 14(1), first sentence, no. 3, first sentence of the Corporation Tax Act. In particular, the Supreme Tax Court comments for the first time on the temporal requirements for the actual implementation of the profit transfer agreement.
In a recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court once again granted the taxpayer interim relief in the form of a suspension from execution and held that in the case of an acquisition of shares in a limited liability company (GmbH) where the contractual acquisition transaction (signing) and the actual transfer of the shares (closing) take place at different times, real estate transfer tax may not be levied twice.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court rule that a German practice of allowing deferral of taxation on the hidden reserves (appreciation in value) in intangible assets transferred abroad is proportional and reasonable in the light of the overall need to ensure a fair distribution of taxing rights between member states.
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.
The Federal Constitutional Court held that § Section 6 (5) Income Tax Act providing for the transfer of business assets at book values to be incompatible with the German Basic Law insofar as it rules out a transfer at book value between partnerships with identical shareholding. This exclusion from the tax privilege is incompatible with the general guarantee of the right to equality and thus not justified.
When purchasing a property for which the buyer and seller have agreed to split the real estate transfer tax equally the tax office requires a verifiable justification when claiming the full amount from the buyer. In its decision the Supreme Tax Court also discussed the question as to whether and when an so called “single (uniform) chargeable transfer” may be assumed.
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 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 two parallel decisions the Supreme Tax Court held that a group of natural persons who are not organized in the legal form of a partnership or another corporation is not considered as a legal entity under civil law and real estate transfer tax law and cannot therefore be a controlling company within the meaning of Section 6a Real Estate Transfer Tax Act which provides tax exemption for transfer or concentration in the hands of a single shareholder of at least 95% of the equity capital of a property-owning company.
In a most recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court held that the transfer of the tax privilege for business assets, rented residential property and family homes among co-heirs requires that the assets are conveyed in the course of the division of the estate. The transfer would not be privileged if the decision to divide the estate and thereby transfer preferential (business) assets in exchange for non-preferential assets is based on a new decision of the community of heirs, when initially they deliberately left the estate undivided.
The Supreme Tax Court has now finally ruled that the German inheritance tax privilege relieving repeated transfers within the same family should not be extended to previous transfers taxable in another member state.
