Tax & Legal

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.

A signing bonus which is paid by a soccer club to a professional player upon the conclusion of an employment contract may be capitalized as part of the acquisition cost for the exclusive playing rights (i. e., the one-off payment made to a player upon signing a contract with a new club) if the club is required to pay a transfer fee for the player’s change of club.

In a most recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that an invoice for advance payment entitles the recipient to deduct the underlying input VAT even if it does not include an explicit reference as to the “advance payment” and provided it is apparent that the payment is made for a service still to be supplied.

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 judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that the restrictions to offset losses for limited partners are not in breach of constitutional law. The temporal restrictions of Section 15a (1) Income Tax Act are not significant in such a way that they would make the application of the new regulation appear unreasonable, especially since the taxpayer is free to decide for himself whether, when, and to what extent he makes a contribution.

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.

The Supreme Tax Court had to determine the place of supply of advertising services for the purpose of input VAT deduction by a company based abroad that has a permanent establishment in Germany. The starting point was the question whether the services were provided for and used by the latter. This was answered by the Supreme Tax Court in the negative.

In a most recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that exit taxation - a process in which hidden reserves of assets (built-in gains) are identified and taxed because otherwise Germany would lose its right of taxation - can, in principle, also occur through a mere change in the law (so called „passive“ exit taxation).

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Tax Court laid down the criteria for a reversal of a purchase transaction to be recognized from a tax point of view. The decisive factor is whether the original acquisition is in fact completely reversed. If several purchasers have purchased a property as co-owners the withdrawal of just one purchaser from the sales contract cannot effectively eliminate their joint claim to transfer of ownership of the property.

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.

Churches themselves determine who is a member of the church within the limits of the constitution. The Supreme Tax Court overturned the assessment of Protestant church tax because the tax court of first instance had not sufficiently examined the issue of re-admission.

The retroactive application of Section 13b (10) Inheritance and Gift Tax Act to gifts made prior to the publication of the revised version of the law on 9 November 2016 does not raise any constitutional doubts according to a most recently published judgment of the Supreme Tax Court.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Tax Court established legal certainty for parents who, as part of an anticipated succession plan, agree with their children during their lifetime on a waiver of the statutory share of the inheritance in exchange for a lump-sum payment. The judges at the highest tax court made it clear that such lump-sum payments, even if paid in installments, are not subject to tax as capital investment income or other income.

The mandatory restriction of the use of assets (dedication of assets) of a charitable institution is fulfilled if the statutes either specify the tax-privileged purpose in detail or sufficiently designate another tax-privileged corporation or legal entity under public law to which the assets are to be transferred for tax-privileged purposes after the dissolution or termination of the corporation or if its previous purpose has ceased to exist. This was decided by the Supreme Tax Court in a recently published judgment.

In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court clarified that, in the context of a silent partnership in a limited liability company, even a high degree of co-entrepreneurial initiative cannot establish the full status of a co-entrepreneur without at least a minimal co- entrepreneurial risk.

In two most recently published decisions the Supreme Tax Court commented on the VAT situation in the event of the sale of a business which is not turnover within the meaning of the VAT Act under certain circumstances. The court denied VAT exemption in both cases, namely where - after the sale - the business is continued by the lessee and where facilities in a solar park are transferred to various purchasers while continuing to feed electricity into the grid.

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 three cases and following oral proceedings on 12 November 2025, the Supreme Tax Court held that using the capitalized earnings value method for the valuation of residential property to determine the land tax from January 1, 2025, to be constitutional.

In a most recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the VAT situation regarding membership fees for non-profit sports clubs and held that they may be subject to VAT. However, it must be verified whether the sports club provides its members with a single service or several separate services, and whether this constitutes a tax-exempt transaction or one subject to VAT.

In a recently published decision, the Supreme Tax Court commented on the issue of recognizing prior ownership periods in the case of a qualified share exchange during the year with respect to the relief for dividends on qualifying holdings (trade tax intercompany dividend privilege). The court rejected a deduction of the dividend from the trade tax basis because the cut-off date “at the beginning of the period of levy” applicable under Section 9 (2a) TTA was not met since the plaintiff did not yet hold an interest in V GmbH at the beginning of the assessment period.