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 2026

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 flagship 2025 tax legislation has sprawling implications for multinationals, including changes to GILTI and foreign-derived intangible income. Barry Herzog of HSF Kramer assesses the impact
Hani Ashkar, after more than 12 years leading PwC in the region, is set to be replaced by Laura Hinton
With the three-year anniversary of the PwC tax scandal approaching, it’s time to take stock of how tax agent regulation looks today
Rolling out the global minimum tax has increased complexity, according to Baker McKenzie; in other news, Donald Trump has announced a 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran
Among those joining EY is PwC’s former international tax and transfer pricing head
The UK firm made the appointments as it seeks to recruit 160 new partners over the next two years
The network’s tax service line grew more than those for audit and assurance, advisory and legal services over the same period
The deal is a ‘real win’ for US-based multinationals and its announcement is a welcome relief, experts have told ITR
Tom Goldstein, who is now a blogger, is being represented by US law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson
In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Gift this article