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

Tax-trained John Sams, previously the firm’s CFO and COO, was appointed after a rigorous process, KPMG said
From Mauritius substance rules to Kenyan SEP tax and South African anti-avoidance measures, businesses must navigate growing scrutiny of cross-border IP structures in Africa
ITR spoke to multinationals, advisers and software providers about a June 30 deadline defined by faulty portals, high compliance costs and hard lessons
After years of onerous pillar two prep, businesses will be galled in seeing tax revenues outweighed by compliance costs
Tax advisers should revisit India secondment arrangements after the EY US ruling strengthened the Centrica precedent and raised fresh withholding concerns
Despite the shortfall, effective tax rates of multinationals have seen a ‘statistically significant rise’
After joining Milbank from Akin Gump, the fund tax specialist discusses sponsor demand, practice building, and the tax challenges facing asset managers
Partner payouts could also be reduced by a fifth, it has been reported
There is no logical reason not to extend an exemption from EU CFC rules to multinationals headquartered in side-by-side jurisdictions, USCIB said
While rarely the sole driver of a combination, tax is becoming an increasingly important part of firms' efforts to keep up with client expectations
Gift this article