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

Public country-by-country reporting is exposing multinational tax data to investors, journalists and competitors, creating fresh risks for businesses
Pillar two compliance is creating unprecedented data demands for multinational tax departments, making closer collaboration with FP&A teams essential for accurate reporting and audit readiness
Among the arrivals is Andrew Howell, who leaves scandal-hit PwC Australia after representing PepsiCo in a high-profile TP dispute
ITR's podcast examines whether the big four have overarching cultural issues and assesses the competitive threat of technology-backed transfer pricing firms
The UK advisory firm has seen its global revenues expand by £27.2m following its listing and acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Tax-trained John Sams, previously the firm’s CFO and COO, was appointed after a rigorous process, KPMG said
From Mauritius substance rules to Kenyan SEP tax and South African anti-avoidance measures, businesses must navigate growing scrutiny of cross-border IP structures in Africa
ITR spoke to multinationals, advisers and software providers about a June 30 deadline defined by faulty portals, high compliance costs and hard lessons
After years of onerous pillar two prep, businesses will be galled in seeing tax revenues outweighed by compliance costs
Tax advisers should revisit India secondment arrangements after the EY US ruling strengthened the Centrica precedent and raised fresh withholding concerns
Gift this article