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

The ability of tax authorities to receive and analyse data is becoming ‘quite advanced’, warns Stuart Lang, head of EY’s compliance co-sourcing solution
The Court of Appeal ruling clarifies that treaty benefits are not abusive where transactions are commercially driven, providing greater certainty on “main purpose” anti-avoidance tests
Despite the Netherlands featuring an unusual concentration of World Tax-ranked technology-led providers, sources believe there’s a long way to go to challenge the established players
Ethics seems to be playing a subservient role to an entitlement culture borne out of a pervasive ‘revenue at all costs’ mentality at the big four
Historical World Tax data suggests the ‘largest law firm merger in history’ may not pose a serious threat to the world's leading tax practices
The repeal of Libya’s statute of limitations and tougher enforcement leave taxpayers navigating a high-stakes choice between conciliation and litigation
All the tax partners elevated across the UK, US and Singapore were private client specialists, continuing a market trend of intense investment and competition
Rolf van de Velde, dubbed ‘an expert chosen by experts’, is tasked with scaling Reptune’s self-service compliance offering
The newly combined firm brings together more than 3,500 practitioners across 52 offices, with flagship hubs in Seattle, London, Sydney and New York.
Building a transparent culture, prioritising internal promotions and being different from the big four are all key features of A&M Tax’s ambitious plans for India
Gift this article