Germany: Remuneration of non-resident directors

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: Remuneration of non-resident directors

peitz.jpg

muscheites.jpg

Petra Peitz-Ziemann


Erik Muscheites

The finance ministry appears to have reconsidered its position on the taxation obligation of the remuneration paid to non-resident directors of German companies. Up to now, it has broadly taken the view that the individual was liable to German income tax on his receipt for work performed in Germany on company business, if he could be considered as part of the local company's organisation. The ministry has now redrafted its decree – though the text is not yet final – choosing a different expression to describe the foreign resident director's involvement with local management, integrated as opposed to bound in. Up to now, bound in was generally considered to exclude the foreign resident who held a directorship with the German company purely to enable him to supervise its activities, or to provide a back-up in the interests of keeping the company fully competent under company law in an emergency. The fear now is that the use of the term integrated without further definition may indicate a change in attitude to the effect that a directorship is a formal appointment subject to registration and the holder is therefore automatically part of local management by virtue of the office held.

Fortunately, the ministry's other main criterion continues to be the country in which the executive physically does the work. Thus a day spent abroad on German company business – whether in the director's home office, or in his office at group headquarters – will not generally be seen as a German taxable event, regardless of its relevance to an intra-group management charge. The same would also seem to apply to days spent in third countries, such as on a visit to a major export customer of the German subsidiary. This position follows, of course, from the dependent personal services clause in most of Germany's double tax treaties.

Petra Peitz-Ziemann (petra.peitz-ziemann@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 69 9585 6586

Erik Muscheites (erik.muscheites@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 69 9585 3628

PwC

Website: www.pwc.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article