Germany: Loss relief deferral unconstitutional?

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Germany: Loss relief deferral unconstitutional?

miles.jpg

Andrew Miles

A company's sole purpose was to own and manage an investment project on behalf of a provincial government. However, its principal refused to accept responsibility for the losses and a lengthy legal battle began. At one point the company's position at court appeared hopeless and it wrote off its claim. This led to a large loss in the accounts and to the realisation that the government would no longer accept the company as a business partner. Faced with the loss of its business, it went into liquidation. In the event, the liquidator was more successful at court than the previous management and ultimately won the case. This resulted in a liquidation profit roughly equal to the loss brought forward. At this point the minimum taxation rule took effect with the consequence that basically only 60% of the loss brought forward could be offset against current income. Since the liquidation assessment is necessarily the final assessment in a company's lifetime, the remaining loss carry-forward lapsed. The company argued that the minimum taxation provision was an unconstitutional offence against the guarantee of unfettered ownership. The Supreme Tax Court accepts the minimum taxation provision as being within the constitution in the normal course of events. The primary effect was deferral in the legitimate interests of securing public finance. Even the confiscatory effect of taxing part of the profit earned in a final period while allowing a remaining loss carry-forward to lapse unused did not offend against the constitution. The guarantee of unfettered ownership is not a guarantee of business success. However, the court sees the present case as something of an exception in that the cause of the loss and the cause of the profit – write-down and write-back of a receivable – are inseparable. The profit is the consequence of the loss and to treat it differently to the permanent disadvantage of the taxpayer is to breach the constitutional demand for equal treatment of like circumstances. The matter has now been referred to the Constitutional Court for a final decision.

Andrew Miles (andrew.miles@de.pwc.com)

PwC

Tel: +49 69 9585 6345

Website: www.pwc.de

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Exclusive ITR data emphasises that DEI does not affect in-house buying decisions – and it’s nothing to do with the US president
The firms made senior hires in Los Angeles and Cleveland respectively; in other news, South Korea reported an 11% rise in tax income, fuelled by a corporation tax boom
The ‘deeply flawed’ report is attempting to derail UN tax convention debates, the Tax Justice Network’s CEO said
Salim Rahim, a TP specialist, had been a partner at Baker McKenzie since 2010
While the manual should be consulted for any questions around MAPs, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also emphasised that the guidance is ‘not a political commitment’
The landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment redefines GAAR, JAAR and treaty safeguards, rejects protections for indirect transfers and tightens conditions for Mauritius‑based investors claiming DTAA relief
The expansion introduces ‘business-level digital capabilities’ for tax professionals, the US tax agency said
As tax teams face pressure from complex rules and manual processes, adopting clear ownership, clean data and adaptable technology is essential, writes Russell Gammon, chief innovation officer at Tax Systems
Partners want to join Ryan because it’s a disruptor firm, truly global and less bureaucratic, Tom Shave told ITR
If Trump continues to poke the world’s ‘middle powers’ with a stick, he shouldn’t be surprised when they retaliate
Gift this article