Germany: 165. Tax Reform Outlook After Constitutional Ruling and Bruehl Recommendations

Last Updated: 2 June 1999
KPMG Germany Webpage
Click on the above link to visit the KPMG Germany webpage on the Mondaq website

For disclaimer and copyright see end of this article.

1. Summary of important developments

It was always the government's intention to couple the tax reform legislation which it introduced in November 1998 and enacted in March 1999 with a subsequent reform of the taxation of business enterprises so as to reduce the cumulative trade tax and income/corporation tax burden to approximately 35 % for all businesses, whether operated as corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships, beginning in the year 2000 (see article. no. 151, sec. 3.3).

The unpopularity of the measures enacted in March 1999 has prompted the government to accelerate its efforts to enact further reforms with the goal of markedly reducing taxes on active trades and businesses.

The following events are noteworthy in the context of the continuing German tax reform debate:

  • Upset victory by the opposition parties in the state elections in Hesse in February 1999.
  • Resignation of Oskar Lafontaine as Minister of Finance in March 1999.
  • Ruling by the Federal Tax Court released in April 1999 indicating that central aspects of the government's tax reforms as enacted and as contemplated are unconstitutional.
  • Presentation in late April 1999 of a report by a government commission formed to make recommendations for further business tax reform measures (so-called "Bruehl Recommendations").
  • Statements by the new Minister of Finance, Hans Eichel, in early May 1999 to the effect that it will probably not be impossible to enact further reforms by the year 2000.

More detail on the above is provided below.

2. Political developments

By losing the election in the German state of Hesse in February 1999, the Social Democrats and Greens forfeited their majority on the Federal Council, a body composed of representatives of the German states, as of 7 April 1999. Since the concurrence of the Federal Council is necessary in order for major tax legislation passed by the Federal Parliament to become law, the governing parties are currently unable to enact further tax reforms without support from at least one state in which the opposition parties are in office. Unless the balance of power in the Federal Council tips again, further tax reform would therefore appear to require a bipartisan consensus.

The abrupt resignation of Oskar Lafontaine as Minister of Finance in early March 1999 may improve chances for a more liberal, and hence consensus-oriented, approach to further tax reform. Mr. Lafontaine was identified with the fiscally conservative contours of the tax legislation enacted so far. The new Minister of Finance is Hans Eichel.

3. Federal Constitutional Court ruling

In a ruling which became public in late April (X R 171/96, dated 24 Feb. 1999), the German Federal Tax Court certified to Germany's Federal Constitutional Court the question of the constitutionality of sec. 32c EStG, a provision which has been in the income tax code since 1994. Under German law, such certification is permissible only when the certifying court is itself convinced of the unconstitutionality of the measure at issue (Art. 100 (1) GG). The Federal Tax Court accordingly explains in its ruling why it considers sec. 32c EStG to be unconstitutional.

Ultimate decision on the constitutional issue is reserved to the Federal Constitutional Court. However, the certification ruling itself, coming from Germany's highest tax court, is sufficient to undermine a principle which, only a few weeks ago, was a central pillar of the government tax reforms as so far enacted and as planned for the near future.

Sec. 32c EStG provides for application of a reduced maximum marginal tax rate of 47 % to an individual's commercial business income in excess of DM 100,224, provided such income is subject to trade tax in his hands. Without sec. 32c EStG, a maximum income tax rate of 53 % would apply on taxable income from DM 120,000 onwards (DM 240,000 for joint filers). The statute thus confers a maximum reduction of 6 percentage points in the marginal tax rate falling on commercial business income.

4. Details of the high court ruling

The majority of tax and constitutional experts have all along considered sec. 32c EStG to be unconstitutional. The voluminous ruling of the Federal Tax Court deals extensively with both the arguments in the literature and the legislative history of the statute, which was linked to the 1994 reduction of the corporation tax rates from 50 % to 45 % for retained earnings (and from 36 % to 30 % for distributed earnings). Without concomitant relief for income derived through businesses operating in non-corporate form, the total tax burden (trade tax plus 45 % corporation tax) on earnings retained in a corporation would have been significantly less than that (trade tax plus personal income tax of up to 53 %) on earnings retained in a commercial partnership or sole proprietorship (personal businesses), thus giving an undesirable tax preference to businesses operating in corporate form.

While the Federal Tax Court considered avoidance of such a preference to be a legitimate goal, it pointed out that the goal was not achieved because the reduced income tax rate of 47 % applied whether or not the earnings of a personal business were retained in the business or withdrawn for private use. The statute thus overshot its mark of equal tax treatment of all forms of business associations and conferred a preference on income earned through personal businesses.

The case before the court involved an individual who had leased his operative business, including fixed assets, to a GmbH of which he was the sole shareholder. Under the German tax principles involving division of a business into an asset-holding entity (here, a sole proprietorship) and an operative entity (here, the GmbH), the shares in the GmbH were deemed held as business property and the dividends received therefore constituted commercial business income (not income from capital) in the hands of the taxpayer.

The taxpayer sought the preferential income tax rate of 47 % with respect to the dividends received. This was denied, however, because the dividends were exempt from trade tax in his hands under sec. 9 no. 2a GewStG (trade tax law) as having already been subjected to trade tax at the level of the GmbH. The statute at issue (sec. 32c EStG) explicitly provides that commercial business income exempt from trade tax in the hands of the shareholder under sec. 9 no. 2a GewStG does not qualify for the reduced income tax rate.

The taxpayer thus found himself in the situation of the typical private shareholder, who likewise is not entitled to a reduced income tax rate on dividends received even though the income in question has already been subjected to trade tax at the level of the distributing corporation.

To the extent the statute was intended to reduce the "double burden" of trade tax and personal income tax, this purpose was likewise not served by maintaining the double burden on income earned through dividends and providing relief only when the income was earned directly.

As a matter of basic constitutional theory, the court stated that the legislature's discretion in the area of taxation was limited by its own fundamental legislative decisions. The decision to tax all seven forms of income distinguished by the German income tax code on an equal basis at the same tax rates as applied to a taxpayer's net available income constituted such a fundamental decision. If the legislature now wished to introduce provisions inconsistent with its own fundamental decision, then the mere fact that such provisions were not completely arbitrary was not sufficient to make them constitutional. They must instead meet a stricter standard of constitutional scrutiny.

Applying this stricter standard, the court found the statute to be unconstitutional in three respects:

  • Without sufficient objective justification, the statute departs from the principle of equal and consistent taxation of all types of income. The fact that the income given preferential treatment has been subjected to trade tax is not a sufficient justification. The deductibility of trade tax for income tax purposes ensures that taxpayers deriving commercial business income pay income tax on their net income, just like all other taxpayers. Furthermore, no "double taxation" of commercial business income is involved because trade tax and income tax are imposed on different tax subjects (the objectified business as opposed to the individual) and on different tax bases. The court stated that a credit of trade tax paid against income tax liability might constitute a constitutional alternative to the statute as written.
  • The statute unconstitutionally discriminates against those who derive dividend income as opposed to those who derive income directly from commercial business activities because it grants a lower income tax rate to the latter, but denies such a rate to the former, even though the income received has in both cases been subjected to trade tax and has left the business sphere and become available for private consumption.
  • The statute unconstitutionally discriminates against those who derive commercial business income in amounts under the threshold of DM 100,278 at which the preference begins.

5. Implications of the high court ruling

The ruling has substantial negative impact on the government's tax reform plans in two respects:

  • The tax relief act enacted in March 1999 increases to 8 percentage points the income tax preference for commercial business income which the Federal Tax Court considers unconstitutional. The chances are therefore good that the March 1999 tax relief act is unconstitutional to this extent.
  • Prior to the high court ruling, the government appeared inclined to expand the income tax preference for commercial business income still further as part of its promised additional reform of the taxation of business enterprises. Now, other options are being explored instead (see below).

It is again emphasised that the ultimate constitutional decision is reserved to the Federal Constitutional Court. If this court were to adopt the holdings of the Federal Tax Court, this would probably lead to denial of the preference granted by sec. 32c EStG with respect to all assessments which are not yet final.

6. Bruehl Recommendations

On 30 April 1999, a bipartisan commission appointed by the government to devise a means of reforming the taxation of business enterprises presented its report (the so-called Bruehl Recommendations) at the Federal Finance Academy in Bruehl. The commission's membership included senior representatives of the German tax authorities. Its goal was to devise a plan for reducing the cumulative trade tax and income/corporation tax burden from the year 2000 onwards to approximately 35 % for all businesses, whether operated in corporate form or as partnerships or sole proprietorships.

The commission itself makes clear, however, that its proposals fall somewhat short of meeting the goal of a combined tax rate of 35 %.

The premise underlying the commission's work is that the economy can be stimulated and unemployment reduced by permitting businesses to retain a higher percentage of their gross earnings for purposes of investment and expansion. The converse of this premise is that the economy would not be commensurately stimulated nor jobs created to the same degree by permitting individuals to retain more of their gross earnings for purposes of consumption. Since small and medium sized businesses operating as sole proprietorships and closely held partnerships account for a major part of all German business activity and are looked upon as the most likely source of new jobs and dynamic growth, it is considered important to find a solution which would not be limited to corporations.

7. Highlights of the Bruehl Recommendations

The highlights of the commission's recommendations are as follows:

7.1 General

  • The goal of a 35 % combined tax rate is presently unattainable in light of the current economic and budgetary situation. Nevertheless, significant tax reduction is possible from the year 2000 on.
  • Since the proceeds of the trade tax are constitutionally guaranteed to local government, there is no short-term prospect of amending or repealing this tax. It would accordingly be left unchanged for the time being, although its repeal and integration into the corporate and individual income tax is considered a desirable middle-range goal.

7.2 Corporation tax

  • The present split corporation tax rates of 40 % for retained earnings and 30 % for distributed earnings are to be replaced by a single unitary rate of 28 %, later falling to 25 %.
  • Based on our simplified calculations, which ignore the solidarity surcharge and assume a net trade tax burden of approx. 17 % (trade tax multiplier of 410 %), the resulting combined trade tax and corporate tax rates would be approx. 40 %, falling to just under 38 % upon introduction of the lower corporate tax rate. This compares with a current combined rate of just over 50 % for retained earnings. (The trade tax burden in fact varies depending on location, and the trade tax is not directly comparable to the corporation tax because of differences in the tax bases on which each is calculated.)
  • Under the commission's plan, there would be no tax on dividends paid by domestic corporations to domestic corporations. Dividends received by domestic corporations from foreign corporations would be tax free if sufficiently taxed in the country of origin.
  • Corporation tax will no longer be creditable against income tax. Instead, only half of dividends received by natural persons resident in Germany will be taxable.
  • According to our simplified calculations, this means that the total tax burden on a dividend received by taxpayers paying a marginal tax rate of 51 % in the year 2000 would be appox. 55.5 %. When the personal tax rate falls to 48.5 % in the year 2002, this figure would fall to approx. 54.7 %. Assuming the lower corporate tax rate of 25 %, the figures would be 53.6 % and 52.8 % respectively.
  • Implementation of the proposed new corporation tax system poses the question of how to deal with the earnings currently retained by domestic corporations, which have been taxed at rates much higher than the proposed new unitary rate. The commission recommends a relatively short transition period. This could mean refunding considerable amounts of corporation tax to reduce the tax burden on retained earnings to a uniform level.

7.3 Taxation of partners and sole proprietors

  • The recommendations for reforming the taxation of partners in business partnerships and sole proprietors are more complicated. The commission notes that such entities could reorganise tax free as corporations and enjoy the lower corporate tax rates outlined above, but does not regard this as an adequate solution.
  • Accordingly, four alternative models are presented for the taxation of "personal businesses". Of these, two involve reducing the personal income tax to take account of trade tax paid on personal income from commercial businesses. One of these models is in effect rejected because of the recent Federal Tax Court ruling (see above), and it is noted that the other must be studied carefully in light of this ruling.
  • The other two models involve taxing the retained earnings of partnerships and sole proprietorships at rates equivalent to those which are to apply for corporations. Under one of these models, partnerships and sole proprietorships would simply be offered the option of electing treatment as corporate entities for tax purposes. Businesses which so elect would be subject to all corporate tax provisions. The other model would create a special personal business tax, equal to the current corporation tax, for the retained earnings of non-corporate businesses. Distributions (withdrawals) would then either be fully taxable to the recipient with a credit for personal business tax already paid, or half of such distributions would be taxable at the full personal income tax rate.
  • Whatever solution is adopted for commercial businesses operating in partnership form or as sole proprietorships might also apply to personal service businesses and agriculture and forestry business as well, either mandatorily or on an opt-in basis.

7.4 Fiscal effects

The commission's estimates of reduced cash inflow to the Federal treasury from the proposed reforms in the year 2000 alone range from DM 13.5 billion to DM 22.0 billion, depending on which model is adopted for personal business taxation and assuming the corporation tax is lowered to only 28 % to begin with. The commission makes no specific recommendations as to tax-increasing countermeasures to reduce the net cost of the reforms, but mentions possibilities for consideration by the legislature and in general leaves the impression that the reforms it recommends would have to go hand in hand with more broadening of the tax base, including, but not limited to, a tightening of the German thin capitalisation rules (sec. 8a KStG).

7.5 Longer range goals

The commission sets the goal of a future "business owner tax" for all partners and sole proprietors and recommends integrating the current trade tax into the corporation tax and business owner tax as a surtax on these taxes. The commission notes as well the high level of German economic subsidies in international comparison and proposes that these be substantially reduced.

7.6 Dissenting opinions

Two distinguished members of the commission presented separate opinions voicing objections to the basic idea of reducing taxes on income retained inside enterprises while maintaining general income tax rates at a level some 13 - 15 percentage points above that of business tax rates. Such a tax differential would, it was argued, foster misallocation of resources and promote all manner of artificial tax planning schemes to obtain the benefit of the lower tax rates. Both separate opinions therefore advocated considerable reductions in income tax rates as such, not just lower business taxes. One of these opinions also criticised the commission's failure to address the issue of low flat rate taxation of personal passive investment income in response to the problem of capital flight, which was seen as intertwined with the question of taxation of business profits in a global economy.

8. Outlook

Far from being a blueprint for construction of a new enterprise tax system, the Bruehl Recommendations are but a rough sketch which raise more questions than they answer. Even though falling short of the goal of a 35 % combined trade tax and corporation/income tax rate for retained business profits, the proposals are still costly, perhaps too much so. Also, the process of analysing and drafting the changes needed throughout German tax law is so formidable that it may be impossible to accomplish this in time for the law to go into effect in the year 2000. There is also an acute need to test the operation of the commission's various proposals through involved hypothetical studies.

The Minister of Finance has stated that implementation of the Bruehl Recommendations in the year 2000 is doubtful both for fiscal reasons and because of the need for careful draughtsmanship in what amounts to a re-writing of much of the German tax code. Nevertheless, many believe that the Bruehl Recommendations lay out the lines along which the architecture of German business taxation will be redesigned in the foreseeable future to make the German tax system more competitive in international comparison and more compatible with other tax systems in the European Union.

One may also conjecture that the much discussed tightening of the German thin capitalisation rules (sec. 8a KStG) will not be enacted in isolation from the business tax reform, hence that if business tax reform is delayed until the year 2001, any changes in sec. 8a KStG will likewise be delayed.

Disclaimer and Copyright

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

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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.