Germany: German Federal Tax Court questions constitutionality of interest deduction limitation rule

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: German Federal Tax Court questions constitutionality of interest deduction limitation rule

Linn
Braun

Alexander Linn

Thorsten Braun

Germany's Federal Tax Court (BFH) referred a case to the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) on February 10 2016 requesting a ruling on whether the interest deduction limitation rule violates the constitution (case ref. I R 20/15).

Introduced as part of the 2008 corporate tax reform, the rule restricting the deduction of interest applies to both shareholder loans and bank loans (that is, loans from related and unrelated parties). The rule limits the deduction of net interest expense (interest expense exceeding interest income) to 30% of the tax EBITDA. There are very limited exceptions to the rule, and its basic features are reflected in the OECD's BEPS Action 4 ('Limiting Base Erosion Involving Interest Deductions and Other Financial Payments') and in the European Commission's draft proposal for an anti-avoidance directive (COM(2016) 26 final).

The BFH initially expressed its doubts about the constitutionality of the interest deduction limitation rule in a decision issued in 2013 (case ref. I B 85/13 dated December 18 2013). However, the final decision on the constitutionality of the measure must be made by the BVerfG. Until this question is decided – which likely will take a few years – the tax authorities can continue to disallow full interest deductions based on the existing rule. Therefore, tax assessments should be kept open. Although the tax authorities likely will continue to apply the rule, tax assessments may be issued on a preliminary basis that would keep assessments open until the BVerfG issues its decision.

Should the BVerfG rule in favour of the taxpayer, a tax refund would trigger interest at 6% per annum, with the interest period starting 15 months after the relevant fiscal year. However, if the BVerfG determines that the interest deduction limitation rule is in line with the constitution, any preliminary tax assessments would become final.

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

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
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article