Back to home
German Tax and Legal News

Compatibility of RETT intragroup exemption with EU state aid rules referred to CJEU

If CJEU concludes unlawful state aid is involved, the European Commission then will need to make a determination

On 30 May 2017, Germany’s Federal Tax Court (BFH) referred a case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requesting a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of the German real estate transfer tax (RETT) intragroup restructuring exemption with the EU state aid rules.

The case before the BFH is based on an appeal by the tax authorities following a 2015 decision by the lower tax court of Nuremberg in favor of the taxpayer, a decision that was contrary to the tax authorities’ guidance on the exemption (see GTLN dated 25 March 2015). Due to the complexity of the rules, in 2015, the BFH asked the Federal Ministry of Finance (MOF) to opine on whether the RETT intragroup exemption constitutes state aid (see GTLN dated 29 February 2016). The MOF confirmed that the exemption was not formally notified to the European Commission (EC) as potential state aid when the exemption was introduced in 2009 (with effect as from 1 January 2010.

Under the RETT intragroup restructuring exemption, certain direct or indirect transfers of real estate or shares in real estate-owning entities are exempt from RETT. One condition for the exemption to apply is that the restructuring transaction must involve one controlling company and one or more controlled entities, and a direct or indirect shareholding of at least 95% must exist between the entities for the five years immediately before and after the transaction. If this criterion is interpreted based on the literal wording of the statute, the criterion cannot be met where the transaction involves a merger (where the controlled entity is eliminated) or a demerger (where the controlled entity is newly created), because the 95% shareholding either would not survive the transaction or would not exist prior to the transaction, respectively.

In the case brought before the BFH, the controlled entity owning real estate was eliminated through an upstream merger, and the German tax authorities denied the intragroup restructuring exemption and assessed RETT. The lower tax court rejected the position of the tax authorities, and held that the exemption generally covers cases where the real estate-owning entity is merged upstream into its parent entity, even though the merger leads to a dissolution of the corporate group for RETT purposes (since only one entity survives). Therefore, the requirement that a 95% shareholding be maintained for five years after the transaction is not met.

On appeal, the BFH agreed with the technical analysis of the lower court and rejected the arguments of the tax authorities. However, the BFH also concluded that, because the exemption is available only for certain restructuring transactions, requires an ownership threshold and a minimum holding period, it could be interpreted as being selective aid in terms of article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. If there is a question whether a measure is “selective” or a “permitted restriction” of a general tax benefit, the issue must be referred to the CJEU for guidance and interpretation of the domestic provision. The BFH considers the RETT intragroup restructuring exemption to be an integral and necessary part of the RETT rules and the conditions for its application are required to limit the number of beneficiaries, so the exemption should not constitute a selective measure under the state aid rules. Nevertheless, the BFH acknowledged there is some uncertainty in this area (referring to the 21 December 2016 decision of the CJEU in the World Duty Free Group case), and referred the issue to the CJEU.

If the CJEU concludes that the RETT intragroup restructuring exemption is selective and, therefore, constitutes unlawful state aid, the European Commission will have to make a final decision on whether the measure is compatible with the principles of the EU free market.

Taxpayers should carefully consider the potential risk associated with relying on the RETT intragroup restructuring exemption and closely monitor the outcome of the CJEU proceedings. Diese Mandanteninformation enthält ausschließlich allgemeine Informationen, die nicht geeignet sind, den besonderen Umständen eines Einzelfalles gerecht zu werden. Sie hat nicht den Sinn, Grundlage für wirtschaftliche oder sonstige Entscheidungen jedweder Art zu sein. Sie stellt keine Beratung, Auskunft oder ein rechtsverbindliches Angebot dar und ist auch nicht geeignet, eine persönliche Beratung zu ersetzen. Sollte jemand Entscheidungen jedweder Art auf Inhalte dieser Mandanteninformation oder Teile davon stützen, handelt dieser ausschließlich auf eigenes Risiko. Deloitte GmbH übernimmt keinerlei Garantie oder Gewährleistung noch haftet sie in irgendeiner anderen Weise für den Inhalt dieser Mandanteninformation. Aus diesem Grunde empfehlen wir stets, eine persönliche Beratung einzuholen.

This client information exclusively contains general information not suitable for addressing the particular circumstances of any individual case. Its purpose is not to be used as a basis for commercial decisions or decisions of any other kind. This client information does neither constitute any advice nor any legally binding information or offer and shall not be deemed suitable for substituting personal advice under any circumstances. Should you base decisions of any kind on the contents of this client information or extracts therefrom, you act solely at your own risk. Deloitte GmbH will not assume any guarantee nor warranty and will not be liable in any other form for the content of this client information. Therefore, we always recommend to obtain personal advice.