Read our insights, reports and more

Where corporations are reorganized into partnerships - for instance by way of a merger (section 2 of the Reorganization Act [Umwandlungsgesetz–UmwG]) or by way of a change of legal form (section 190) – various “gains” are triggered under the Reorganization Tax Act. The “transfer gain” [Übertragungsgewinn] can in many cases be mitigated or avoided altogether by filing an application (section 3(2) of the Reorganization Tax Act); the “takeover gain” and the “takeover loss” [Übernahmegewinn/Übernahmeverlust] (section 4(4)), by contrast, cannot. A takeover loss cannot be taken into account at all for trade tax purposes (section 18(2) sentence 1), while for income tax purposes it may be taken into account only to a limited extent (section 4(6)). The Federal Tax Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now ruled on this matter once again (file ref. IV R 3/23).

The changes to subsections (2a) to (3a) of section 1 of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act [Grunderwerbsteuergesetz–GrEStG] have recently drawn attention to the real estate transfer tax (RETT). In addition, the European Court of Justice has pronounced on the Nova Iberomoldes case and has called into question the levying of RETT on restructurings. Moreover, in numerous very extensive circulars in February and March, the tax authorities set out their view of how the provisions of the RETT Act are to be applied. The discussion concerning “tax relief for restructurings within a group” under section 6a of the RETT Act has now “calmed down somewhat”, following controversies in both EU and national law. The Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now again ruled on the term “controlling enterprise” [herrschendes Unternehmen] as defined by sentences 3 and 4 of section 6a (II R 2/23).

“Tax offices and the Federal Central Tax Office may upon request provide advance rulings on the treatment of precisely defined, as yet unrealised circumstances if this is of particular interest due to the existence of significant tax implications”, states section 89(2) sentence 1 of the Fiscal Code [Abgabenordnung–AO]. Taxpayers that are planning a restructuring which they have not yet carried out, for instance, may obtain legal certainty as to what the consequences of this will be with respect to the tax authority. The Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now again taken a position on the requirement to pay a fee for the advance ruling in complex cases (II R 38/23).

Cross-border commuter rules are found in several German double tax treaties (DTTs) [Doppelbesteuerungsabkommen-DBA] with neighbouring states, particularly those with France, Austria and Switzerland. Other DTTs with such states are not equipped with such a rule. The cross-border commuter rules lead to taxation outcomes that diverge from the otherwise customary rules on "employment" under article 15 of the 2025 OECD Model Convention [OECD-Musterabkommen-OECD-MA] 2025/article 14 of the 2026 German Model Treaty. The Federal Tax Court [Bundesfinanzhof-BFH] has now again decided on the cross-border commuter rule under the DTT with Switzerland (file ref. VI R 31/24).

Income taxes are frequently levied through withholding taxes in both purely domestic and cross-border contexts. The withholding of withholding tax on capital income (sections 43 and following of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz-EStG]) is (also) final in many cases even for taxpayers subject to resident tax liability (section 43(5) sentence one). Furthermore, in the taxation of taxpayers subject to non-resident tax liability (section 1(4); section 2 of the Foreign Transactions Tax Act [Außensteuergesetz-AStG]; section 2 of the Corporate Income Tax Act [Körperschaftsteuergesetz-KStG]), the “finality effect” of such withholding taxes often precludes the possibility of assessment (section 50(2) sentence one of the Income Tax Act; section 32(1) of the Corporate Income Tax Act). The possibility of obtaining a refund of overpaid withholding taxes is particularly essential for taxpayers subject to non-resident tax liability. The option, in this case, instead of challenging the underlying self-assessment under section 50d(1) sentence 2 of the Income Tax Act (old version) (now: section 50c(3) sentence 1), to obtain a refund has been denied by the sixth chamber of the Federal Tax Court [Bundesfinanzhof-BFH] (file ref. VI R 12/24). However, the sixth chamber of the Federal Tax Court has provided for a transitional provision.

Concerning tax-related time limits, the Fiscal Code [Abgabenordnung–AO] basically refers back, in section 108, to sections 187 to 193 of the Civil Code [Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch–BGB]. In section 109 it also addresses the extension of these time limits and, in section 110, restoration to the previous status (restitutio in integrum). But time limits also play a role in the substantive provisions of income tax law. In particular, section 23 of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG] on “private disposal transactions” contains this kind of time element. Depending on the asset concerned, the time limits of one or ten years apply. How these are to be calculated is therefore of considerable importance for taxability. The Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has reaffirmed its settled case law on this point (IX B 24/26).

When it comes to income tax, the death of a taxpayer marks a break that, while it does not interrupt the assessment period (section 25(1) of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG]), does raise numerous other questions. In special provisions such as section 6(3) of the Act and section 11d(1) of the Income Tax Implementation Directive [Einkommensteuerdurchführungsverordnung–EStDV], the legislature has clarified specific issues in this area, just as section 45 of the Fiscal Code [Abgabenordnung–AO] partially resolves procedural issues. However, deductions — such as loss carryforwards under section 10d of the Income Tax Act — do not pass to heirs who are universal successors (section 1922(1) of the Civil Code [Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch–BGB]). The tenth chamber of the Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now ruled along the same lines regarding the “quasi-special expenses” under section 10f of the Income Tax Act (“Tax relief for listed historic buildings and buildings in redevelopment areas and urban development zones used as residences”; file ref. X R 23/24).

Trade tax liability under section 2(1) of the Trade Tax Act [Gewerbesteuergesetz–GewStG] is substantively linked to business activity under section 15(2) of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG]. However, there are differences in the timing between income tax and trade tax. Trade tax liability under section 2(1) of the Trade Tax Act only arises once all the conditions that constitute business activity have been met and the business activity has been started. Income tax, on the other hand, covers all business activities starting from the first preparatory step to open a business. With regard to notional business activities (section 15(3) of the Income Tax Act), which also give rise to a trade tax liability, the Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has again now ruled on this issue (file ref. IV R 5/24).

Trade tax liability under section 2(1) of the Trade Tax Act [Gewerbesteuergesetz–GewStG] is substantively linked to business activity under section 15(2) of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG]. However, there are differences in the timing between income tax and trade tax. Trade tax liability under section 2(1) of the Trade Tax Act only arises once all the conditions that constitute business activity have been met and the business activity has been started. Income tax, on the other hand, covers all business activities starting from the first preparatory step to open a business. With regard to notional business activities (section 15(3) of the Income Tax Act), which also give rise to a trade tax liability, the Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has again now ruled on this issue (file ref. IV R 5/24).

In the area of income taxes, taxpayers have numerous election rights that can have a significant impact on their tax burden. The income tax consequences are not always as dramatic as those resulting from the extended deduction under section 9 no. 1 sentence 2 and following of the Trade Tax Act [Gewerbesteuergesetz–GewStG], which triggers an (almost complete) exemption from trade tax. Other elections can reduce the income tax burden, for example, when electing for the partial income method (“Teileinkünfteverfahren”; section 32d(2) no. 3 of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG]), which makes actual income-related expenses deductible. With regard to the deduction for special expenses under section 10a, the Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now once again ruled on making elections and the procedural implications (file ref. X R 28/24).

Under German tax law, shipping is particularly supported in a national context through imput-ed taxation (“tonnage taxation”; “Tonnagenbesteuerung”) under section 5a of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG] and section 7 sentence 3 of the Trade Tax Act [Gew-erbesteuergesetz–GewStG]. In a cross-border context, ship personnel who are subject to non-resident tax liability only derive German-source income under (a) of section 49(1) no. 4 of the Income Tax Act, whereas flight personnel must also observe an additional specific provi-sion in letter (e). Furthermore, German double tax treaties (DTT) often contain provisions modeled after article 15(3) of the 2025 OECD Model Convention, on which the Federal Fiscal Court [BFH; Bundesfinanzhof] has now ruled (file ref. VI R 1/24).

The overall real interest rate plays a role in various areas of tax law, but it is not always “automatically” implemented into tax law by the legislature. Pension provisions are to be discounted at a “fixed” interest rate of 6%. But other provisions are discounted using an equally “fixed” interest rate of 5.5%. The 5.5% interest rate is also used in the Valuation Act [Bewertungsgesetz–BewG], where it is applied throughout the provisions of sections 12 and following. The Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now ruled on the level of the statutory interest rate regarding section 14 (“lifetime usufructs and benefits”) (file ref. II R 35/23).

Assets may be transferred between related parties – such as a transfer to the next genera-tion – without consideration (“anticipated succession”). But they may also be carried out for consideration, particularly if this does not trigger income taxation for the transferor (e.g. sec-tion 23 of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG] outside the “ten-year peri-od”). According to case law up till now, the interest-free deferral of the underlying claim in the form of an installment payment agreement gave rise to income from capital assets (sec-tion 20(1) no. 7). The eighth chamber of the Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now departed from this long-standing, established case law (file refs. VIII R 30/24, VIII R 1/23).

The European Union Parent-Subsidiary-Directive aims to eliminate economic double taxation within a corporate group in the case of cross-border distributions of profit. To do this it avoids burdens from withholding tax on distributions within the EU, among other things. In its implementation in Germany, in section 43b of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG], full exemption from withholding taxes is tied to a twelve-month holding period and a minimum shareholding of 10%. Alongside this is an exception under section 43b(1) sentence 4 for investment income as defined by section 20(1) no. 1 received in connection with the liquidation or reorganisation of a subsidiary. The Federal Fiscal Court has now ruled on this particularity (file ref. VIII R 8/24).

The ninth chamber of the Federal Fiscal Court has issued a ruling on the conditions for off-setting losses against other income. In accordance with long-established case law, the pro-visions in section 22 no. 3 sentences 3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act and section 23(3) sen-tences 7 and 8 of the Income Tax Act are constitutional. In typical cases, a waiver on grounds of equity is not an option.

The distinction between the seven types of income under section 2(1) sentence 1 of the Income Tax Act [Einkommensteuergesetz–EStG] is significant in various contexts, such as when determining the tax rate (section 32a vs. section 32d). From the taxpayer’s perspective, however, the tax base differs due to the partial income method when distinguishing between section 17 (income from business operations) and section 19 (income from employment). From the employer’s perspective, the obligation to withhold income tax only applies to income from employment (sections 38 and following). The Federal Fiscal Court [Bundesfinanzhof–BFH] has now again ruled on this distinction (file ref. IX R 1/25).