Germany: Restrictive application of the German trust model

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: 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 & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Hotel La Tour had argued that VAT should be recoverable as a result of proceeds being used for a taxable business activity
Tax professionals are still going to be needed, but AI will make it easier than starting from zero, EY’s global tax disputes leader Luis Coronado tells ITR
AI and assisting clients with navigating global tax reform contributed to the uptick in turnover, the firm said
Gift this article