In a recently published judgment, the Supreme Tax Court decided that a fee may be charged for each individual request for binding advance ruling and that the number of requests is determined by the underlying facts as a single course of events. The judges further concluded that the fees for providing the requested information are not subject to the statute of limitations and the collection of these fees is not unconstitutional, even if the requested advance ruling is denied.
In a decision published on 5 November 2020, the Supreme Tax Court held, that the application of Section 171 (14) General Tax Code (“GTC”) is not restricted to cases of invalid tax assessments. Rather, any claim for a refund connected to a tax claim can in principle trigger a suspension of the run down to statutory limitation. However, if the refund claim is to suspend the limitation period for assessments, the claim must have come into existence before the expiry of this limitation period. Payments made in anticipation of an expected change to tax assessments for the years in dispute gave rise to a refund claim thus triggering the suspension of the limitation period under Section 171 (14) GTC as there was no formal legal basis for the payment.
The Supreme Tax Court has held that there is no serious doubt that a profit pooling agreement must provide for a ten year statute bar on loss subvention claims of an Organschaft subsidiary.
