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 2025

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

Experts from law firm Kennedys outline the key tax disputes trends set to define 2026, ranging from increased enforcement to continued tariff drama and AI usage
They also warned against an ‘unnecessary duplication of efforts’ in UN tax convention negotiations; in other news, White & Case has hired Freshfields’ former French tax head
Awards
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL EMEA Awards by 16 February 2026
Defending loss situations in TP is not about denying the existence of losses but about showing, through proactive measures, that the losses reflect genuine commercial realities
Further empowerment of HMRC enforcement has been praised, but the pre-Budget OBR leak was described as ‘shambolic’
Michel Braun of WTS Digital reviews ITR’s inaugural AI in tax event, and concludes that AI will enhance, not replace, the tax professional
The report is solid and balanced as it correctly underscores the ambitious institutional redesign that Brazil has undertaken in adopting a dual VAT model, experts tell ITR
The Brazilian law firm partner warns against going independent too early, considers the weight of political pressure, and tells ITR what makes tax cool
The lessons from Ireland are clear: selective, targeted, and credible fiscal incentives can unlock supply and investment
The ITR in-house award winner delves into his dramatic novelisation of tax transformation, and declares that 'tax doesn’t need AI right now'
Gift this article