Germany: 098. Constitutional Challenges To German Tax Laws

Last Updated: 17 December 1997
KPMG Germany Webpage
Click on the above link to visit the KPMG Germany webpage on the Mondaq website
We report in this article on constitutional challenges raised in recent weeks against various aspects of the German tax laws.

As a general matter we note that the German Federal Constitutional Court, which has subject matter jurisdiction to review the compatibility of federal or state law with the German federal constitution, has in the past often held German tax laws to be unconstitutional. The most far-reaching decision of this sort declared the German net worth tax and inheritance tax to be unconstitutional with respect to their real estate valuation provisions (BVerfG BStBl II 1995, 655 - 22 June 1995; see articles nos. 25 and 58, sec. VIII and IX). This decision is at issue in the cases reported on in sections 2 and 3 below. Prior to the commencement of this series of articles in the summer of 1995, the Federal Constitutional Court also held the zero bracket amounts and the child deduction amounts to be unconstitutionally low and forced the German legislature to enact a withholding tax on interest income by declaring the taxation of interest income unconstitutional unless steps were taken to collect the tax in a more efficient and equitable fashion (BVerfG BStBl II 1991, 654 - 27 June 1991). The taxation of interest income is at issue in the case reported on in section 4 below.

1. Constitutionality of the trade tax on earnings

Pursuant to Article 100 (1) of the German constitution, a court which is persuaded of the unconstitutionality of a legal provision at issue in a case before it must suspend proceedings and refer the question to the Federal Constitutional Court. In its ruling of 23 July 1997 (EFG 1997, 1456), the Tax Court of Lower Saxony has concluded that the trade tax on earnings violates Article 3 of the German constitution (principle of equality before the law) in two respects and placed the issues before the Federal Constitutional Court for ultimate determination.

The ruling is exceptional in a procedural respect because it was handed down by a single judge sitting without co-justices. While the decisions of a tax court are normally reached by panels of three justices, a single judge sitting without co-justices may decide a case if the parties so consent (sec. 78a (3) AO). This occurred in the case reported on. However, as a procedural matter it is not clear whether a single judge is permitted to rule on so fundamental a matter as the constitutionality of a federal law. In a recent essay (DB 1997, 2454), Pahlke argues that a single judge is required to refer matters of this sort back to the full panel, hence that the ruling in question was procedurally inadmissible. Were this the case, the Federal Constitutional Court would refuse to hear the matter. The taxpayer would then not be able to appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court until he has exhausted his normal remedies, that is, lost an appeal to the Federal Tax Court.

Keeping in mind that the ruling may be procedurally invalid, the reasoning of the court (single justice) in holding the trade tax on earnings to be unconstitutional was as follows:

1. The trade tax on earnings is imposed on commercial businesses (trades) but not on the businesses of independent professionals (the liberal professions such as law, architecture, medicine, or accounting and other occupations deemed sufficiently similar thereto) or on non-commercial farming and forestry businesses. The court sees no sufficient basis for this distinction under modern economic conditions. The historical justification for the trade tax, which can be traced back to the high middle ages and has been part of German tax law in its modern form since the Prussian Tax Reform of 1891, is that commercial businesses (trades) place special burdens on local communities (e.g. with respect to water and waste disposal, roads, other infrastructure, community services, etc.) which do not arise in conjunction with independent professional practices or non-commercial farming and forestry. Critics have often contended that the distinction between commercial and non-commercial economic activity has outlived its validity and its constitutional justifiability. The Tax Court of Lower Saxony has now adopted the position of these critics.

2. The court is also persuaded that sec. 15 (3) no. 1 EStG (German income tax act) is unconstitutional in that it treats a civil law partnership (Gesellschaft buergerlichen Rechts) as a commercial business subject to trade tax with respect to all of its income if any such income is of a commercial nature. The partners in civil law partnerships are thus seen as unconstitutionally disadvantaged vis-a-vis sole proprietors, whose commercial income does not taint their non-commercial income and cause it to become subject to trade tax as well.

2. Constitutionality of real estate transfer tax on private homes

Three other Tax Court decisions concern the constitutionality of imposition of real estate transfer tax on the purchase of a dwelling to satisfy basic personal needs. The decisions are contradictory, although all three stem from the 3rd Chamber of the Tax Court of Lower Saxony.

In a ruling dated 28 May 1997 (see press release of 27 October 1997, BB 1997, 2307), a judge sitting without co-justices reaches the conclusion that real estate transfer tax (raised in 1997 from 2 % to 3.5 %) may not be constitutionally imposed on such home purchases and hence refers the issue to the Federal Constitutional Court for resolution. However, see section 1 above concerning the possible invalidity of such a ruling on procedural grounds.

In the other two cases, a full panel of justices reaches the opposite result on sets of facts posing the same issue (judgements of 18 July 1997 - EFG 1997, 1324 and 9 September 1997 - StEd 50/1997 of 9 Dec. 1997).

The ruling of 28 May 1997 holds that the imposition of the real estate transfer tax on the purchase of a home for the purchaser's private use as his principal dwelling is unconstitutional to the extent the value of the home does not exceed a monetary limit to be drawn between DM 400,000 and DM 600,000 ($ 228,000 and $ 342,000 respectively at an exchange rate of $ 1.00 = DM 1.75). To put these figures in perspective: In and around Germany's large population centres, the lower limit is at best sufficient to purchase a modest condominium adequate for the needs of a family with one or at most two children. The upper limit is at most adequate for the purchase of a small row house or duplex with a tiny garden in an inexpensive neighbourhood.

While the details of the case are not available as this article is being prepared, the court argues that imposition of the tax on the purchase of a dwelling to satisfy basic personal needs would violate the property guarantee of Article 14 (1) of the German constitution. The court also relies on Article 3 (1) of the constitution (equality under law and the concomitant principle of equitable taxation). The ruling apparently relies on the June 1995 decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court regarding the net worth and inheritance taxes. In these decisions, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that a certain basic amount of personal wealth to be determined with reference to a typical house with furnishings should be exempted from the net worth tax and should be allowed to pass free of inheritance tax between close relatives.

The full panel of justices which reaches the opposite result in the other two cases does so at least in part because it believes the June 1995 decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court to relate exclusively to the taxation of income from property. One may question whether this is a correct reading of the June 1995 decisions. The taxpayer has appealed to the Federal Tax Court, direct appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court being impossible.

3. 50 % constitutional limit on total taxation?

In its June 1995 decisions declaring the real estate valuation provisions of the net worth tax and inheritance tax laws to be unconstitutional, the Federal Constitutional Court also appeared to say that the total tax burden on an individual could not constitutionally exceed roughly half of the individual's income (BVerfG BStBl II 1995, 655 - 22 June 1995; see article no. 25). This comment sparked lively comment and criticism at the time, inter alia from a dissenting justice on the Court. Commentators were quick to observe that, even if a 50 % total taxation limit were to apply, this would not per se invalidate Germany's current top marginal income tax rate of 53 % since the 50 % limit could be construed as applying to the average tax rate.

At present, individuals paying church tax in addition to income tax and solidarity surcharge are subject to an approximate 60 % marginal income tax rate starting at income levels of DM 120,000 / DM 240,000 for single and joint filers respectively. This marginal tax rate rises if taxable income includes income subject to trade tax, although the full impact of the trade tax is mitigated for higher income earners by sec. 32c EStG. In addition, individuals pay 15 % value added tax on most purchases and, as remarked above, 3.5 % real estate transfer tax on the purchase of a home.

It is therefore not surprising that taxpayers are attempting to rely on the so-called "50 % division principle" (Halbteilungsprinzip) referred to by the Federal Constitutional Court. Recently, the Berlin Tax Court was asked to stay enforcement of a tax assessment on the grounds that the assessment was unconstitutional under the 50 % division principle (EFG 1997, 546 - 16 January 1997). The court refused to do so, stating that the relevant passages in the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court were probably "mere obiter dicta and thus non-binding expressions of opinion". At most, the court considered the statements by Germany's highest court to constitute "a guideline for future legislative decisions," hence by no means a firm basis on which individual taxpayers could rely.

The court's decision was merely on the issue of a stay of enforcement, not on the merits. The taxpayer has appealed the refusal of the stay to the Federal Tax Court.

Prior to publication of the ruling of the Berlin Tax Court in October 1997, the Chemnitz Regional Tax Office issued an administrative order stating that numerous administrative appeals based on the 50 % division principle had been filed and directing the tax offices in its jurisdiction to reject all such appeals despite the case pending before the Federal Tax Court. Normally, administrative appeals posing the same constitutional issue as a case pending before the Federal Tax Court would be suspended pending the outcome of that case (sec. 363 (2) sent. 2 AO).

4. Constitutionality of taxation of interest income

In its decision of 18 February 1997 (BFH HFR 1997, 676) the 8th Chamber of the Federal Tax Court rejects the constitutional challenge of a taxpayer to taxation of interest income in the year 1993. The taxpayer relied on the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court referred to in the introduction to this article (BStBl II 1991, 654 - 27 June 1991) in which this court held that the German taxation of interest income was so lax as to constitute unconstitutional inequality before the law (Article 3 (1) of the German constitution) because persons who so desired could with impunity avoid taxation of their interest income. The court said, in effect, that if the government failed to take steps within a certain period to correct the "tax enforcement deficit" and collect tax on interest income on a more equitable basis, it would be barred from taxing this type of income at all.

The basic change made was introduction of an interest withholding tax effective 1993. The taxpayer in the present case argued essentially that this was inadequate to comply with the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and that hence taxation of his interest income was barred by the decision. He in particular argued that sec. 30a AO placed unconstitutional restrictions on the tax authorities in their investigation of customers of German banks.

In rejecting the taxpayer's arguments, the Federal Tax Court held that the legislature had done enough to comply with the judgement of the Federal Constitutional Court at least with respect to the year 1993. The Federal Tax Court implied in the headnote of its decision that the legislature was entitled, so to speak, to "wait and see" whether the steps it had taken would prove adequate to correct the "tax enforcement deficit," hence that it was in 1993 too soon to recognise any possible failure to correct the deficit. The Federal Tax Court also interpreted the critical passages of sec. 30a AO, certain of which had been expressly criticised by the Federal Constitutional Court with regard to the forerunner provision of sec. 30a AO, in such manner as to render them constitutional.

The decision by the Federal Tax Court exhausts the normal legal remedies available to the taxpayer. The taxpayer has filed an appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court (case no. AR 3844/97).

The Magdeburg Regional Tax Office has issued an administrative order (2 October 1997 - BB 1997, 2467) noting both the appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court and a second case on the same issue pending before the Federal Tax Court. It directs the tax offices under its jurisdiction to permit suspension of other proceedings posing the same issue pending the outcomes of these cases (sec. 363 (2) sent. 1 and 2 AO), but to reject requests to stay collection of the tax.

This article treats the subjects covered in condensed form. It is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be relied on as a basis for business decisions. Specialist advice must be sought with respect to your individual circumstances. We in particular insist that the tax law and other sources on which the article is based be consulted in the original, whether or not such sources are named in the article. Please note as well that later versions of this article or other articles on related topics may have since appeared on this database or elsewhere and should also be searched for and consulted. While our articles are carefully reviewed, we can accept no responsibility in the event of any inaccuracy or omission. Please note the date of each article and that subsequent related developments are not necessarily reported on in later articles. Any claims nevertheless raised on the basis of this article are subject to German substantive law and, to the extent permissible thereunder, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. This article is the intellectual property of KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG (KPMG Germany). Distribution to third persons is prohibited without our express written consent in advance.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions