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

If Trump continues to poke the world’s ‘middle powers’ with a stick, he shouldn’t be surprised when they retaliate
The Netherlands-based bank was described as an ‘exemplar of total transparency’; in other news, Kirkland & Ellis made a senior tax hire in Dallas
Zion Adeoye, a tax specialist, had been suspended from the African law firm since October over misconduct allegations
The deal establishes Ryan’s property tax presence in Scotland and expands its ability to serve clients with complex commercial property portfolios across the UK, the firm said
Trump announced he will cut tariffs after India agreed to stop buying Russian oil; in other news, more than 300 delegates gathered at the OECD to discuss VAT fraud prevention
Taxpayers should support the MAP process by sharing accurate information early on and maintaining open communication with the competent authorities, the OECD also said
The Fortune 150 energy multinational is among more than 12 companies participating in the initiative, which ‘helps tax teams put generative AI to work’
The ruling excludes vacation and business development days from service PE calculations and confirms virtual services from abroad don’t count, potentially reshaping compliance for multinationals
User-friendly digital tax filing systems, transformative AI deployment, and the continued proliferation of DSTs will define 2026, writes Ascoria’s Neil Kelley
Case workers are ‘still not great’ but are making fewer enquiries, making the right decision more often and are more open to calls, ITR has heard
Gift this article