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 2025

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

The new guidance is not meant to reflect a substantial change to UK law, but the requirement that tax advice is ‘likely to be correct’ imposes unrealistic expectations
Taylor Wessing, whose most recent UK revenues were at £283.7m, would become part of a £1.23bn firm post combination
China and a clutch of EU nations have voiced dissent after Estonia shot down the US side-by-side deal; in other news, HMRC has awarded companies contracts to help close the tax gap
An EY survey of almost 2,000 tax leaders also found that only 49% of respondents feel ‘highly prepared’ to manage an anticipated surge of disputes
The international tax, audit and assurance firm recorded a 4% year-on-year increase in overall turnover to hit $11bn
Awards
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
CIT as a proportion of total tax revenue varied considerably across OECD countries, the report also found, with France at 6% and Ireland at 21.5%
Erdem & Erdem’s tax partner tells ITR about female leader inspirations, keeping ahead of the curve, and what makes tax cool
ITR presents the 50 most influential people in tax from 2025, with world leaders, in-house award winners, activists and others making the cut
Cormann is OECD secretary-general
Gift this article