Germany: Restrictive application of the German trust model

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Germany: Restrictive application of the German trust model

schnitger.jpg

weiss.jpg

Arne Schnitger


Martin Weiss

Over the past few years, partnerships have grown in popularity as investment vehicles into Germany. Profit shares are repatriated free of withholding tax as partnerships are treated as transparent for income (corporation) tax purposes, that is the income is taxed at the level of its partners. However, German trade tax levied on business income is owed by the partnership itself, that is the partnership is not transparent for trade tax. Consequently, trade tax losses can only be carried forward by the partnership and cannot be offset against income from other German operations of associated enterprises. To enable offset of the trade tax losses of the German partnership against other trade tax income of the partner, the trust model is frequently used by German and foreign investors. The second partner holds a minor limited partnership share as the nominee of the general partner. In consequence, the partnership ceases to exist for tax purposes (that is, the general partner is subject to tax on the trade tax income) while continuing to exist under corporate law. Accordingly, the partnership's results are mingled with those of the general partner for both trade and income (corporation) tax.

Such partnerships being set up according to the trust model trigger various questions, for example regarding their entitlement to a tax-free reorganisation under German tax law. A provincial tax directorate has issued a new directive according to which a merger of a company into a partnership deemed as being held by a single partner cannot be conducted tax-free for failure to meet the condition in the Reconstructions Tax Act that the merged assets be taken up by the surviving entity. Even though this interpretation of the law is questionable, it may make a trust partnership somewhat inflexible as a vehicle for further operations.

Arne Schnitger (arne.schnitger@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 30 2636-5466

Martin Weiss (martin.weiss@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 30 2636-2588

PwC

Website: www.pwc.de

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

India’s budget changes goods and services tax rules; UK private school VAT challenge fast-tracked
It is understood that the US has vowed to oppose any outcome from talks taking place at the UN
It’s the second year in a row that RSM’s tax business has posted fee income growth above 10%
Recent guidance from the Indian tax authorities should provide confidence for investors, says Sanjay Sanghvi of Khaitan & Co
Grant Wardell-Johnson also suggests there could be solutions to the friction between the US and the OECD when it comes to pillar two
The president had so far avoided announcing tariffs on the US’s neighbours despite previous threats
The firm brought in three managing directors from EY and Deloitte in Europe; in other news, KPMG’s bid to practise law in US was delayed
One expert argues the ERS would be unlikely to improve taxpayers’ experience unless it comes with additional funding to hire more agents and staff
From pillar two and amount B to Apple’s headline EU Commission dispute, Martin Bonner and Yiwen Ping of Kreston Global argue that 2024’s key TP developments will inform 2025
Holland & Knight, Nelson Mullins and McCarter & English made the joint-most tax partner hires in the US last year, according to annual ITR Talent Tracker data
Gift this article