Germany: EGC rules German exception to change-in-ownership rule qualifies as unlawful state aid

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: EGC rules German exception to change-in-ownership rule qualifies as unlawful state aid

Linn
Braun

Alexander Linn

Thorsten Braun

On February 4 2016, the European General Court (EGC) issued a decision upholding the 2011 decision of the European Commission that the 'restructuring exception' in Germany's rules relating to the carryforward of tax losses by companies in financial difficulties constituted illegal state aid under EU law.

Under the change-in-ownership rules, a direct or indirect share transfer of more than 25% and up to 50% (or of more than 50%) of the shares in a company that has loss carryforwards results in a pro rata (or full) forfeiture of the carryforwards. One of the few exceptions to this rule was the restructuring exception, which granted relief for built-in gains and for certain acquisitions of businesses that are in distress, subject to a number of conditions.

The European Commission regarded the relief for distressed businesses as unlawful state aid and requested the German Government not to apply the rule in existing and open cases. The government objected but lost its case before the EGC for procedural reasons. The case against the European Commission then was brought to the EGC by several taxpayers in separate cases of which two have now been decided. Both taxpayers had obtained binding rulings from the German tax authorities confirming their entitlement to future loss offsets despite harmful changes in ownership. The rulings were withdrawn after the European Commission made its request to the German government.

The EGC held that the general rule requires the forfeiture of loss relief on a change-in-ownership and the exception confers a selective advantage on the beneficiary without regard to individual circumstances and, therefore, prefers certain (distressed) companies over their competitors. The court rejected the argument that the change-in-ownership provisions were intended to prevent the abusive practice of buying tax loss companies, whereas the exception was designed to assist distressed companies, because a rescue attempt was not the only non-abusive share acquisition in a loss-making company. The decision of the EGC was appealed by at least one of the taxpayers so that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will have the final word on the matter (case ref. C-203/16 P).

Alexander Linn (allinn@deloitte.de) and Thorsten Braun (tbraun@deloitte.de)

Deloitte

Tel: +49 89 29036 8558 and +49 69 75695 6444

Website: www.deloitte.de

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Luxembourg’s reform agenda continues at pace in 2025, with targeted measures for start-ups and alternative investment funds
Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Prudential had challenged HMRC over VAT group relief; in other news, Donald Trump unveiled timber and wood tariffs, and the European Commission published a ViDA implementation strategy
Australia’s CbCR rules have ‘widespread support’ and do not put American companies at a competitive disadvantage, the FACT Coalition said
Baker McKenzie advised two of the member firms involved, while several advisers provided transaction counsel to US-based Grant Thornton Advisors
Gift this article