Germany: No real estate transfer tax charge on indirect partial transfer of partnership share

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: No real estate transfer tax charge on indirect partial transfer of partnership share

welbers.jpg

Hartwig Welbers, PwC

Real estate transfer tax (RETT) of between 3.5% and 5.5% of the taxable value of property owned by a partnership is due if at least 95% of the ownership interests in the partnership change over a five-year period. The change can be direct or indirect. On this basis, the tax office raised a RETT assessment on a partnership of two partners after the ultimate holding company of a 6% partner sold 50% of the shares in its interposed direct subsidiary to another direct subsidiary and the remaining 50% to a third party following the transfer of the 94% partnership interest by the other partner to a different third party. The tax office contention was that the effective composition of the property owning partnership had changed by more than 95%, taking all changes together. The Supreme Tax Court in its judgment II R 17/10 of April 24 2013 published on June 19 2013 has now rejected the tax office's contention. Rather, only 94% of the partnership interest had changed hands (the first transaction) and the 6% holding remained unaffected. Direct changes of ownership were a matter of legal form, while indirect changes could only be seen as a matter of business substance. In that respect only a sale of all the shares in an interposed corporation to a new ultimate shareholder enabled him to dispose over the partnership share without reference to the other investor. The 50% sale at issue did not and was not therefore the equivalent of a transfer of a 3% share in the partnership.

Whether this judgment applies to indirect changes in shareholdings in a property-owning corporation is not entirely clear, although such a conclusion would seem logical.

The tax authorities are rumoured to be considering a decree instructing tax offices not to follow this court decision as a precedent in other cases.

Hartwig Welbers (hartwig.welbers@de.pwc.com)

PwC

Tel: +49 711 25034 3165

Website: www.pwc.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Gift this article