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

Around 450 client-facing roles are due to be axed next week, it has been reported
The OECD may be making a mistake if a 2029 review is intended to outlast Trump in the hope of more favourable treatment from the US Democrats
Nexdigm has invested in Singapore-based infer360, a TP intelligence product designed by ex-PwC partners
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2026 Americas Tax Awards
Despite initial hopes that the reporting obligation had been suspended, compliance challenges brought by Brazil’s indirect tax reform are very much a reality
As tax authorities embrace AI and governments weigh pillar two reforms, Latin America is developing a more connected and internationally focused tax agenda
Advisers with pre-existing corporation tax or self-assessment accounts must now register or risk enforcement action from HMRC
India's tax authorities are increasingly scrutinising the rationale behind cross-border structures
Sharmila Sanmugam's move from industry to WTS UK offers an early glimpse into how the fledgling firm hopes to compete with larger rivals
Historical claims involving KPMG Australia's tax practice have surfaced as the firm battles a separate parliamentary inquiry into its handling of whistleblowers
Gift this article