Germany: Restrictive application of the German trust model

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: Restrictive application of the German trust model

schnitger.jpg

weiss.jpg

Arne Schnitger


Martin Weiss

Over the past few years, partnerships have grown in popularity as investment vehicles into Germany. Profit shares are repatriated free of withholding tax as partnerships are treated as transparent for income (corporation) tax purposes, that is the income is taxed at the level of its partners. However, German trade tax levied on business income is owed by the partnership itself, that is the partnership is not transparent for trade tax. Consequently, trade tax losses can only be carried forward by the partnership and cannot be offset against income from other German operations of associated enterprises. To enable offset of the trade tax losses of the German partnership against other trade tax income of the partner, the trust model is frequently used by German and foreign investors. The second partner holds a minor limited partnership share as the nominee of the general partner. In consequence, the partnership ceases to exist for tax purposes (that is, the general partner is subject to tax on the trade tax income) while continuing to exist under corporate law. Accordingly, the partnership's results are mingled with those of the general partner for both trade and income (corporation) tax.

Such partnerships being set up according to the trust model trigger various questions, for example regarding their entitlement to a tax-free reorganisation under German tax law. A provincial tax directorate has issued a new directive according to which a merger of a company into a partnership deemed as being held by a single partner cannot be conducted tax-free for failure to meet the condition in the Reconstructions Tax Act that the merged assets be taken up by the surviving entity. Even though this interpretation of the law is questionable, it may make a trust partnership somewhat inflexible as a vehicle for further operations.

Arne Schnitger (arne.schnitger@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 30 2636-5466

Martin Weiss (martin.weiss@de.pwc.com)

Tel: +49 30 2636-2588

PwC

Website: www.pwc.de

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Advisers who do not register for the new regime in time could be prevented from interacting with HMRC, the tax authority said
Valid pillar two objectives are still intact after the side-by-side agreement, but whether the framework is now settled is ‘a $64,000 question’, Morrison Foerster’s tax chair told ITR
Ian Halligan previously led Baker Tilly’s international tax services in the US
Exclusive ITR data emphasises that DEI does not affect in-house buying decisions – and it’s nothing to do with the US president
The firms made senior hires in Los Angeles and Cleveland respectively; in other news, South Korea reported an 11% rise in tax income, fuelled by a corporation tax boom
The ‘deeply flawed’ report is attempting to derail UN tax convention debates, the Tax Justice Network’s CEO said
Salim Rahim, a TP specialist, had been a partner at Baker McKenzie since 2010
While the manual should be consulted for any questions around MAPs, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also emphasised that the guidance is ‘not a political commitment’
The landmark Indian Supreme Court judgment redefines GAAR, JAAR and treaty safeguards, rejects protections for indirect transfers and tightens conditions for Mauritius‑based investors claiming DTAA relief
The expansion introduces ‘business-level digital capabilities’ for tax professionals, the US tax agency said
Gift this article