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

The arrival of Alex Anderson swiftly follows that of funds tax specialist Stuart Alter and suggests the Tier 3-ranked firm has higher ambitions
One of the two appointments is EY’s Gordon McIntosh, who becomes the big four firm’s second senior tax departure in September
Balson's move from a Tier 1 practice to a Tier 3 competitor looks counterintuitive. The market data suggests it is anything but
Awards
It was another banner year for Deloitte, which picked up more awards than any other firm at a gala ceremony held at The Londoner in Leicester Square
The big four firm has been embroiled in a scandal over partners’ misuse of confidential board papers to pitch for and win corporate audits for Westpac and Dexus
Drawing on lessons from the PepsiCo case, tax lawyer Paul McNab explains why the ATO's latest royalty guidance should concern multinationals well beyond the technology sector
As pillar two exposes the limits of fragmented tax processes, organisations are rethinking their operating models to create the trusted data foundations that AI demands
World Tax data shows Matt Donnelly is moving from a Tier 3 transactional tax practice to a Tier 1 market leader, underlining Kirkland & Ellis’s pull at the top end of the market
Nexdigm's Maulik Doshi and infer360 co-founder Sunil Agarwal dig deeper into their partnership and discuss why the tax technology industry is consolidating
Advisers won’t be short of work in a world of increased valuation disputes, documentation requirements and behavioural responses from clients seeking to protect their wealth
Gift this article