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

The president’s tariff regime has already caused misery for taxpayers. Losing at the Supreme Court would mean it was all for nothing
The US itself was the biggest loser of tax revenue to American multinationals’ profit shifting, the Tax Justice Network reported; in other news, firms made key tax hires
Identifying who will bear the costs and concerns around confidentiality are issues yet to be resolved, advisers say
As multinationals embed tax technology into their TP functions, a new breed of systems – built on multi-model databases – is quietly transforming intercompany pricing logic
The president described it as ‘one of the most important cases in the history of our country’; in other news, Portugal established a VAT group regime
Clients are facing increased TP audit scrutiny in Hungary. DLA Piper Hungary is therefore using AI and advanced analytics to augment its advice, the firm’s head of TP says
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and MinterEllisonRuddWatts were among the firms that advised on the deal
AI will mean fewer entry-level roles in tax but also the emergence of new jobs, according to tax expert Isabella Barreto
As World Tax unveils its much-anticipated rankings for 2026, we focus on standout performances by PwC, KPMG and Deloitte across the Asia-Pacific region
The partnership model was looking antiquated even before the UK chancellor’s expected tax raid on LLPs was revealed. An additional tax burden may finally kill it off
Gift this article