Germany: Tax neutral cross-border downstream merger

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Despite a general decline in corporate tax rates around the world, jurisdictions are now more reliant on it than in 1990, a Tax Foundation economist found
Australian law firm Webb Henderson’s report said PwC had met 46 of 47 targets; in other news, the OECD has issued new transfer pricing country profiles
The arrival of a seven-strong team from Baker McKenzie will boost WTS Germany’s transfer pricing capabilities and help it become ‘a European champion’, the firm’s CEO said
Germany has forgotten to think about digital reporting requirements, a WTS partner claimed at ITR’s Indirect Tax Forum 2025
E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Gift this article