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

In looking at the impact of taxation, money won't always be all there is to it
Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board is set to kick off 2026 with a new secretary to head the administrative side of its regulatory activities.
Ireland’s Department of Finance reported increased income tax, VAT and corporation tax receipts from 2024; in other news, it’s understood that HSBC has agreed to pay the French treasury to settle a tax investigation
The Australian Taxation Office believes the Swedish furniture company has used TP to evade paying tax it owes
Supermarket chain Morrisons is facing a £17 million ($23 million) tax bill; in other news, Donald Trump has cut proposed tariffs
The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
Gift this article