Germany: Tax neutral cross-border downstream merger

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: Tax neutral cross-border downstream merger

Linn-Alexander
Braun

Alexander Linn

Thorsten Braun

In a decision dated April 22 2016 (6 K 1947/14 K, G), the Tax Court of Duesseldorf ruled that in the course of a cross-border downstream merger, the shares in the surviving entity must be capitalised at book value.

In the case, a German resident GmbH (limited liability company) was merged cross-border into its wholly-owned subsidiary, a corporation resident in Luxembourg. The shareholder of the GmbH was resident in the US. The court had to decide whether the shares in the Luxembourg subsidiary would have to be capitalised at book value or at fair market value in the closing balance of the disappearing German GmbH. A capitalisation at fair market value would have resulted in the disclosure of built-in gains and an effective taxation of 5% of such gains.

In guidance issued on the matter, the fiscal authorities had said the shares should be capitalised at fair market value. The interpretation of the legal provisions by the tax authorities was mainly driven by the fact that the merger would result in a loss of German taxation rights.

However, the Tax Court of Duesseldorf (the Court) decided, in contradiction to this earlier opinion, deciding not only to capitalise the shares at book value, but also explicitly rejecting the interpretation as published in the decree on the tax implication of mergers (Umwandlungssteuererlass), issued by the German Federal Ministry of Finance on November 11 2009. The court stated that in a down-stream merger the shares in the surviving entity (the Luxembourg subsidiary) can be capitalised at their book value in the disappearing parent company. According to the court, the shares would neither directly nor in analogous interpretation qualify as passing over assets in the sense of Section 11 para 1, para 2, s1 of the German Transaction Tax Act. Instead, the shares would have to be valued separately according to Section 11 para 2, s2 of the Transaction Tax Act, and increased by any write-downs and deductions according to the applicable provisions in the Income Tax Act. In the case at hand, no write-downs or other deductions had been made.

The first instance decision by the court answers a heavily discussed question on the implication of cross-border downstream mergers. The Federal Tax Court will have the final word in its proceedings on an appeal pending under I R 31/16.

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

Around 450 client-facing roles are due to be axed next week, it has been reported
The OECD may be making a mistake if a 2029 review is intended to outlast Trump in the hope of more favourable treatment from the US Democrats
Nexdigm has invested in Singapore-based infer360, a TP intelligence product designed by ex-PwC partners
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Americas Tax Awards
Despite initial hopes that the reporting obligation had been suspended, compliance challenges brought by Brazil’s indirect tax reform are very much a reality
As tax authorities embrace AI and governments weigh pillar two reforms, Latin America is developing a more connected and internationally focused tax agenda
Advisers with pre-existing corporation tax or self-assessment accounts must now register or risk enforcement action from HMRC
India's tax authorities are increasingly scrutinising the rationale behind cross-border structures
Sharmila Sanmugam's move from industry to WTS UK offers an early glimpse into how the fledgling firm hopes to compete with larger rivals
Historical claims involving KPMG Australia's tax practice have surfaced as the firm battles a separate parliamentary inquiry into its handling of whistleblowers
Gift this article