Germany: Finance Ministry issues guidance on the use of a brand name within a multinational group

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: Finance Ministry issues guidance on the use of a brand name within a multinational group

intl-updates-small.jpg

Companies need to be prepared to answer tax questions on brand names and the application of the hypothetical arm's-length test as the appropriate transfer pricing method for trade mark fees.

schmidtke.jpg
Linn

Richard Schmidtke

Alexander Linn

On April 7 2017, the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) published guidance on the application of section 1 of the Foreign Tax Act (AStG) in the context of the use of a brand name and the use of trademark rights and other intangible assets.

Background

On January 21 2016, the Federal Tax Court (BFH) decided (case I R 22/14) that where related parties of a multinational group are allowed to use a brand name free of charge, this may not create a business relationship on which a transfer pricing adjustment according to section 1 of the AStG is possible. With reference to the principles of older case law (BFH case I R 12/99), the court concluded that a permission to use the group's name as part of the own company name does not trigger taxable license fees.

Applicable regulations

Section 1 of the AStG allows an income adjustment in cross-border business relations of related parties to the extent intra-group transactions do not follow the arm's-length principle.

Administrative guidance

The BMF agrees with the BFH that the mere use of names within a group without the use of trademark rights and other intangible assets is in principle not subject to any consideration, so that in cross-border cases no income adjustment according to section 1 of the AStG will occur. However, the BMF caveats this to cases where the use of names does not create a benefit for which two independent parties would agree on a remuneration. In addition to that, the BMF argues that a cross-border use of names is often associated with the use of trademark rights and other intangible assets, so that the remuneration is linked to such advantages.

An indication for a business transaction which is subject to a remuneration exists where the owner of the name or trade mark has the possibility to exclude a third party from using the name or trademark, e.g. if the trade mark is registered in the respective country.

When determining the amount of the remuneration, it has to be considered if the user expects to receive an actual economic benefit from the use of an intangible value (e.g. use of a company name or a trade mark) irrespective of whether this benefit actually was obtained (ex-ante consideration). For example, entities only engaged in distribution activities would not receive a benefit from the use of the name or trade mark if the value of these intangibles is embedded in the purchase price of the goods. Contrary to that, production and service entities would receive a benefit from the use of names or trademarks when these are used in the own value-generating activities. As a general rule, the amount payable as a license fee is determined by the hypothetic arm's-length principle.

Observations

According to representatives of the German tax administrations, one purpose of the new guidance is to ensure that inbound cases are treated similar as outbound cases. There is the perception that foreign multinationals charge significant trademark fees to German subsidiaries, but German multinationals do not do the same with their foreign subsidiaries. German subsidiaries should therefore be prepared to document as part of their transfer pricing documentation the advantages received and may have to consider the application of the hypothetical arm's-length test as the appropriate transfer pricing method for trade mark fees.

Richard Schmidtke (rschmidtke@deloitte.de) and Alexander Linn (allinn@deloitte.de)

Deloitte

Tel: +49 89 29036 8690 and +49 89 29036 8558

Website: www.deloitte.de

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s data has highlighted the US firm’s ambition to become America’s ‘premier’ tax player via a concerted partner recruitment strategy
Jaap Zwaan’s arrival continues a recent streak of A&M Tax investing in the region; in other news, the US and Japan struck a deal that significantly lowered tariff rates
In a world where international tax concepts rely on human activity, Leonard Wagenaar poses existential questions about the future of such ideas when AI is ever-present
France v Axa provides a practical illustration of how the burden of proof is applied in TP matters under French law, ITR also heard
In an exclusive interview with ITR, Ian Gary calls for a central public CbCR database and bemoans the US’s lack of involvement in international tax transparency
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
In the first of a new series of weekly opinion pieces, ITR Editor Tom Baker reflects on the OECD’s attempts to sanitise the US’s brazen pillar two negotiations
The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
Gift this article