05.03.2026Federal tax court denies RETT relief where notification not timely filed
Decisions highlight importance of timely filed RETT notifications
In three related and identical decisions dated 8 October 2025 and published on 12 February 2026, the German federal tax court highlighted the importance of timely filed real estate transfer tax (RETT) notifications. The court ruled that, where a RETT notification is not filed or filed late, the RETT assessed on a transaction cannot be cancelled even if the underlying transaction is subsequently reversed. Furthermore, the court denied the taxpayers’ requests to grant “reinstatement to the previous status” (i.e., to treat them as if the RETT notifications were filed on time) or for a retroactive extension of the notification deadline.
Background and facts of the case
Under the RETT rules, upon a triggering event, a RETT notification must be submitted to the responsible local tax office within a two-week period (in certain cases a one-month period applies). If a notification is filed late or not filed (or is incomplete), there may be disadvantageous consequences for the parties involved. For example, if a transaction that triggered RETT is reversed or rescinded, any RETT that was assessed may be cancelled (or, if it has not yet been assessed, assessment can be prevented), but only if the RETT notification was timely filed and complete. The importance of a timely filed notification is also important in share deal transactions where (based on the RETT rules and their interpretation by the tax authorities) the signing of a share purchase agreement and the closing of the transaction might each qualify as a separate RETT triggering event, both requiring a timely filed and complete notification. If both notifications are filed on time and complete, the closing event “supersedes” the signing event and RETT is assessed only for the closing event. If the notifications are not filed on time or are incomplete, RETT is assessed for both events, resulting in double RETT for one and the same transaction (see GTLN dated 12/09/22).
The cases at hand decided by the federal tax court involved an inheritance settlement procedure between siblings. During the settlement procedure, shares in a real estate-owning entity were transferred multiple times. However, the siblings did not file RETT notifications. Furthermore, the notary (who was also required to file RETT notifications) filed such notifications late. The inheritance settlement was subsequently reversed by way of a cancellation and repurchase agreement. In the meantime, the local tax office had issued RETT assessment notices. Since the notifications were not filed by the siblings (and filed late by the notary), the RETT assessments could not be cancelled. The parties requested that, for RETT purposes, they should be granted “reinstatement to the previous status” since, through no fault of their own, the siblings had missed the statutory deadline (section 110 of the General Tax Code). Alternatively, the parties requested a retroactive extension of the notification deadline (section 109 (1), sentence 2 of the General Tax Code). The local tax office rejected the requests.
Federal tax court decisions
In the decisions, the federal tax court agreed with the local tax office and denied both the requests for reinstatement and the requests for a retroactive extension. The court initially noted that the length of a delay in filing (even a few days, as the notary did in the cases at hand) does not matter, as the deadline provided by law is a fixed deadline. The court, in addition, denied the request by the siblings for reinstatement (based on the nonfiling being through no fault of their own), as the siblings had an obligation to obtain advice (for example, by engaging a tax advisor) as to the RETT notification requirements and consequences of late filing. Reinstatement requested by the notary was also not available, as the notary did not qualify as a taxpayer in the transaction (regardless of the fact that the notary was required to file RETT notifications). Finally, the court denied a retroactive extension of the notification deadline, as a request for an extension must always be submitted within the original notification deadline.
Deloitte Germany comments
In the decisions, the federal tax court once again made clear that the timely and proper fulfillment of the RETT notification obligations must be taken seriously and monitored thouroughly. Organizational errors on the part of the notary's office or lack of knowledge on the part of the parties involved cannot excuse a missed filing deadline. Furthermore, missed filings or late filings might result in late filing penalties and even lead to the initiation of administrative proceedings by the tax authorities.
The current filing deadline for RETT notifications generally is two weeks; depending on the specific situation and parties involved, a one-month filing deadline might apply. Thus, since the filing deadlines are rather short, meeting the filing deadline is often challenging. There currently is a proposal pending in the legislative process that would provide for a uniform one-month RETT filing deadline, which would provide some relief (see GTLN dated 01/22/26). Nevertheless, due to the amount and detail of the information required to be included in the RETT notification, it is highly recommended to prepare the required RETT notifications well in advance of any transaction where RETT could apply. Also, it should be noted that a RETT notification must generally be filed even if a specific exemption from RETT applies.
Your contacts
