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 2025

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

The reduction would still ‘leave room’ for pillar two and further reductions would be possible, one expert tells ITR
Funding from private equity house EQT will propel WTS Germany to compete with the ‘big four’, the firm’s leaders told ITR in an extensive interview
New Zealand is bucking the trend of its international counterparts with its investment-friendly visa approach. Here’s what high-net-worth investors need to know
However, nearly 10% of reports only disclosed activities in tax havens, according to the Fair Tax Foundation; in other news, Plante Moran sealed a US east coast merger
While pillar one is still alive, it will apply to a smaller group of companies, Brian Foley also told ITR
Tax teams that centralise and automate their pillar two data will have a much easier time during reporting season, says Hank Moonen, CEO of TaxModel
While GCCs drive efficiency for multinationals, they also present a host of TP risks that should be considered carefully
PwC Ireland has also called for simplifying Ireland’s tax code and a reduction in its capital gains tax in a pre-budget submission
Effective audit management requires more than documentation; it’s the way taxpayers engage that can shape audit direction, manage procedural ambiguity, and preserve options for appeal or litigation
American advisers are falling short of client expectations when it comes to providing value-added services, but remaining tight-lipped won’t make the problem go away
Gift this article