Germany vs. “Capital reduction Gmbh”, October 2014, Supreme Tax Court judgment I R 31/13

Posted on | By Courts of Germany
Category: Financial Transactions, General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR), Non-Recognition and Recharacterisation, Shares and Dividends, Withholding Tax (WHT) | Tag: , , , ,
« | »

A German company resolved a share capital reduction of €16 m in preparation for a capital repayment to avoid an IFRS consolidation requirement for its sole shareholder, a public utility. It took the reduction to capital reserve, waited as required by the German Company Act for one year after a public announcement to it’s creditors, reported the reduction to the German trade registry and repaid an amount of €4 m to the shareholder. This repayment was sufficient to reduce the assets below the level for the consolidation requirement.

The tax administration recharacterised the payment to a “dividend distribution” subject to withholding tax under the German Corporate Tax Act provision to the effect that payments to shareholders are deemed to be made from retained earnings unless unambiguously specified as repayments of share capital.

The Supreme Tax Court concluded that the unambiguous specification need not be solely in the capital reduction/repayment resolution itself. The reduction resolution stated being preparatory to a capital repayment to the shareholder, but did not state the (at the time unknown) amount.

It was clear from all the circumstances that the repayment followed the capital reduction as soon as the German Company Act permitted. There was every indication that a capital payment was intended and nothing to suggest that anything else had ever been contemplated. Accordingly, the court accepted the payment as a tax-free repayment of share capital, despite the interim booking as a capital reserve.

Click here for English translation

Click here for other translation

Germany-vs-Corp-2014-BUNDESFINANZHOF-Urteil-I-R-31-13

Related Guidelines

TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.221It is important to recognise that the capital adequacy requirements of a captive insurance are likely to be significantly lower than an insurer writing policies for unrelated parties. This factor should be considered and, if necessary, adjusted for in order to determine the appropriate level of capital to use when...
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.10The following are examples of costs associated with shareholder activities, under the standard set forth in paragraph 7.6: a) Costs relating to the juridical structure of the parent company itself, such as meetings of shareholders of the parent, issuing of shares in the parent company, stock exchange listing of the...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.52The actual contributions, capabilities, and other features of the parties can influence the options realistically available to them. For example, an associated enterprise provides logistics services to the group. The logistics company is required to operate warehouses with spare capacity and in several locations in order to be able to...
TPG2022 Chapter X paragraph 10.203Insurance also requires risk diversification. Risk diversification is the pooling of a portfolio of risks by which the insurer achieves an efficient use of capital. Large commercial insurers rely on having sufficiently large numbers of policies with similar probabilities of loss to allow statistical laws of averages to apply and...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.29The mutual agreement procedure is a well-established means through which tax administrations consult to resolve disputes regarding the application of double tax conventions. This procedure, described and authorised by Article 25 of the OECD Model Tax Convention, can be used to eliminate double taxation that could arise from a transfer...
TPG2022 Chapter IV paragraph 4.62Taxpayers’ contributions to the mutual agreement procedure process are of course facilitated where public guidance on applicable procedures is readily accessible. The work on Action 14 of the BEPS Action Plan directly recognised the importance of providing such guidance. Element 2.1 of the Action 14 minimum standard states that countries...
TPG2022 Chapter VI paragraph 6.78When the distributor actually bears the cost of its marketing activities (for example, when there is no arrangement for the legal owner to reimburse the expenditures), the analysis should focus on the extent to which the distributor is able to share in the potential benefits deriving from its functions performed,...
TPG2022 Chapter I paragraph 1.148Company S1 conducts research activities to develop intangibles that it uses to create new products that it can produce and sell. It agrees to transfer to an associated company, Company S2, unlimited rights to all future intangibles which may arise from its future work over a period of twenty years...
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.9A more complex analysis is necessary where an associated enterprise undertakes activities that relate to more than one member of the group or to the group as a whole. In a narrow range of such cases, an intra-group activity may be performed relating to group members even though those group...
TPG2022 Chapter VII paragraph 7.59The third step in this simplified charge method for low value-adding intra-group service costs is to allocate among members of the group the costs in the cost pool that benefit multiple members of the group. The taxpayer will select one or more allocation keys to apply for this purpose based...