artax logo white
MoPeG

The law to modernize the law of partnerships - MoPeG, which came into force on January 1.1.2024, XNUMX, is a Trojan horse and represents a trap for shareholders, including managing directors who are not involved, and for advisors, especially in tax law. There is an urgent need for action.

Since January 1.1.2024, XNUMX, the so-called MoPeG has been regulating the law of partnerships. It seems that many companies and also their consultants are taking their time, waiting and looking at the whole thing in peace. However, this is extremely dangerous, especially because of the expanded liability in tax law. Those affected include:

  • The property-owning GbR
  • Family holding company
  • Communities of heirs with property
  • Managing Director of German companies with subsidiaries abroad
Table of Contents

Real estate GbR and family holding GbR

Germany Switzerland Spain Liechtenstein China

Due to the abolition of the joint ownership of company assets as a result of the MoPeG, these companies should be registered as quickly as possible in the newly introduced company register. Because without registration, neither the land registry office nor the commercial register will make any entries. This means that it is practically no longer possible to complete a purchase or sale of property if there is no entry in the company register.

Registrations for the company register must be made in a publicly certified form, ie before the notary. This becomes problematic if not all shareholders are available or they cannot (or cannot) participate for whatever reason. For partners living abroad, it may be necessary to work with the help of register powers and an apostille.

It is not possible for the eGbR to return to an unregistered GbR by deleting it from the company register. In case of doubt, the eGbR must be liquidated with all tax implications accepted.

To stay with the property-owning companies: With regard to the property transfer tax, a three-year transition period was introduced, during which the property companies of the previous type continue to be treated as a joint entity for the purposes of the property transfer tax. After that, Sections 5 and 6 GrEStG are no longer applicable due to the lack of joint assets and the shares are deemed to have been transferred to the shareholders and may lead to the creation of GrESt.

As with corporations, there has been a strict separation of asset spheres between partnerships and shareholders since January 01.01.2024, 35. However, this does not change the tax treatment of partnerships, except that in the future you can also opt to be taxed like a corporation as an eGbR (but only as such). At this point, caution is required when representing the eGbR, because an application submitted to the shareholders also leads to the general applicability of exit taxation according to the AStG and, depending on the country, to dividend taxation there. In this respect, national laws regarding withholding taxation of dividends and time-bound refund applications must be observed. For example, 30.6% withholding tax is charged in Switzerland. Dividend recipients living abroad can only do so until June 20th. the following year submit an application for a refund of 15%. XNUMX% remains in Switzerland and is credited to a maximum of this amount in the beneficiary's country of residence.

Our experts will be pleased to advise you!
We are happy to assist you with national and international tax matters.
 

Conversion forward and backward

The eGbR has been included in the scope of conversion tax law since January 1.1.2024, 1.1.2024. Single-member GmbHs can continue to be merged with the sole shareholder, multi-member GmbHs can now be merged not only into a registered OHG or KG, but also eight months backwards - and thus to a point in time before the legal change - in a tax-neutral manner into a multi-member eGbR. This means that since January XNUMX, XNUMX, a multi-member GmbH can also be dissolved without liquidation.

The possible over-indebtedness in the balance sheet, not to be found in the course of the enormous processes to unstructure the economy, but also often to be found in startups, no longer triggers the obligation to file for insolvency and prevents damage to the company as well as to the managing directors and shareholders (note the new one § 34 Paragraph 3 AO). Before the conversion, an analysis of the transferred risks should of course be carried out because the sole trader as well as the shareholders of an eGbR are personally liable. However, this is often the case during the time of a GmbH, when personal guarantees or guarantees were given to the financiers.

International reference, Section 14b AO

Companies with statutory headquarters abroad but whose management is carried out in Germany, or which have a tax permanent establishment in Germany according to the definition in the DTA and which are therefore subject to tax in this country, have been the addressee of the content of tax assessments and tax notices since January 1.1.2024, 1.1.2024, regardless of the result of the legal type comparison other administrative acts. Since January XNUMX, XNUMX, the managing directors of such a company have unlimited liability for the taxes owed by the company. This is due to liability for taxes Partially limited liability company .

Subsidiaries abroad

Personal liability of managing directors, shareholders, as well as their tax advisors and auditors

Since January 1.1.2024, 140, the legal representatives of both partnerships and corporations, as well as the members, partners or joint partners of an unincorporated association of persons as well as the asset managers, have a personal and direct obligation in relation to the German tax authorities. They must fulfill all duties imposed on those they represent. These include, for example, the accounting, declaration, cooperation or information obligations (§§ 90 ff., 93, 77 AO), the obligation to pay taxes and to tolerate enforcement against these assets (§ XNUMX AO). At Foreign affairs are therefore completely new standards to the organizational structure, to the preparation of foreign financial statements, to provide evidence of unit costs, market prices, and calculations. The due diligence requirements required in Germany must also be observed abroad and proof of compliance must be provided.

The directors and managing partners risk being prosecuted and risk their personal assets if they are held responsible. Especially in relation to China, for example, this becomes extremely dangerous if you go there as a result

Due to the developments to be observed and insufficient management and control, the German authorities cannot fulfill their obligations to provide evidence. Because a lack of or inadequate provision of evidence is to the detriment of the company and, more recently, even to the detriment of the managing directors of German companies. If in doubt, they will check the cause of the damage with their tax advisor and take advantage of their professional liability insurance. The consultants should check whether such damage would even be insured.

Strengthen internal control system and compliance

Claims arising from liability can only be effectively countered by fulfilling the legal obligations of the foreign company in Germany. The usual rules for distributing the burden of proof do not apply. Because this is a foreign matter, extended obligations to cooperate must be fulfilled in accordance with Section 90 Paragraph 3 AO, which de facto results in a reversal of the burden of proof. This is a pretty sharp sword, with which the auditors and tax offices have a strong means of exerting pressure because the tax courts are overwhelmed and legal clarification can usually only be achieved after years of proceedings and therefore in constant uncertainty. So far, the tax authorities have only been able to enforce claims against the German company. What is new is that taxes assessed in Germany against a foreign company can now be collected directly from the managing directors. The tax office can now also seize the assets of the foreign company and, for example, make representations to its customers.

 

Example: return of the manager, transfer prices cost+

The German parent company has a subsidiary in China. A senior employee from Germany is employed there as a manager and has lived in China for many years. In the wake of the corona pandemic, like many other foreigners, he returned to his homeland. Due to the possibility of working from home, personal presence is no longer required as before. The manager is transferred back to Germany, but remains responsible for China

The parent and subsidiary companies have supply and service relationships with each other. There is also documentation on the methodology and design of transfer prices for intercompany transactions. The result was the cost-plus method, also known as cost+, because the subsidiary in China only carries out routine functions.

In the course of a tax audit, the tax office assumes that the place of actual management of the Chinese company is in Germany because the essential decisions of daily business are made in Germany. Nothing has changed compared to before, except that the manager is now sitting at his desk in Germany.

As a result, the German tax office treats the Chinese subsidiary as resident in Germany. The German tax office requires the submission of accounting prepared in accordance with the German Commercial Code (HGB), a German tax balance sheet and the submission of German tax returns for the Chinese company. If this is not done within the set deadline, the tax office will impose penalty payments and estimate the tax bases. Since enforcement against the Chinese company is only possible for the assets located in Germany (e.g. receivables from customers), the tax office holds the parent company liable and enforces against its assets. The right to do so arises from the new Section 14 b Paragraph 3 AO. The tax assessment is sufficient for enforcement; a court title is not required. This liability would not exist if no German company or person living in Germany were a direct shareholder of the Chinese company. The same problem also arises in relation to subsidiaries in other countries.

In addition, it should be noted that by presenting one that has actually been lived procedural documentation and can avoid or at least reduce the risk of residency relocation through a documented competence regime. However, it still remains to be checked whether, if the company is resident abroad for tax purposes (Article 4 DBA), this foreign company does not have a “place of management” in Germany and thus a permanent establishment for tax purposes in accordance with Article 5 DBA. In this respect, it does not have to be the only location of the line. The problems that arise from this are basically the same as with a transfer of tax residence. Only the volume is different, which is put into perspective when the tax bases are estimated.

Participation in a foreign partnership

For any participation in foreign companies, it is necessary to check how the company would be classified under German law according to the so-called legal type comparison. Depending on the statutes or the exercise of tax options (e.g. check the box under US law, or when investing in certain funds in France), this company is treated from a German perspective as either a partnership or a corporation. If it is classified as a partnership, it must be further examined:

whether this foreign company is treated as having legal capacity or as having no legal capacity under German law. According to Section 14 b Paragraph 4 AO, taxes against unincorporated companies can now also be enforced directly against the persons involved.

Outsource subsidiaries?

If you don't want to expose yourself to this risk, you can ensure that no managing director of the foreign subsidiary lives in Germany. The German tax administration has no direct access to managing directors living abroad. Although this does not eliminate the claims on the company, it does make it more difficult to enforce fiscal claims on the managing director. So this isn't really a permanent solution. The managing director could possibly also be called upon abroad or when returning to Germany.

Another possibility to free yourself from liability would be to reorganize the value creation and supply chains, combined with outsourcing the shares in the domestic or foreign subsidiary, for example to a Liechtenstein or Swiss company. Compared to German corporate taxation, these countries are around 20 percentage points cheaper. Depending on the type of business, you can also interpose a tax-exempt company in Hong Kong. Unlike Germany, Switzerland has a DTA with Hong Kong, for example, so that these arrangements are additionally protected by international law. Restructuring can make sense even if hidden reserves are discovered. The outsourcing of shares in a foreign corporation from the assets of a German UG, GmbH or AG costs hardly any taxes anyway due to the tax exemption in Section 8b KStG.

By moving the shares to a foreign company, you also reduce other tax risks that only lurk in Germany. After the BFH's ruling on the cross-border effects of business splits, the often-cited exit tax threatens practically at every corner, even without moving away! This should be clarified using the following example. When asked directly about the verdict, BFH judges could only shrug their shoulders and remain silent. Not only the legislature, but also the highest courts here and there apparently don't think things through to the end. Some things seem like an ax in the forest. But as we all know, this also has its good side:

Exit tax without moving away - avoiding the splitting of the business

Working from home is also common practice among entrepreneurs. Depending on their lifestyle, some people are drawn to the Baltic or North Sea, others prefer southern climes, living at least temporarily in Florida, southern France, Tuscany or Mallorca. This can be highly explosive from a tax perspective if the entrepreneur is involved in a corporation based in Germany. From a German perspective, working from home abroad can lead to exit taxation even if the entrepreneur is still resident in Germany for tax purposes.

Example: Mr. M lives in Germany and holds more than 50% of a GmbH based in Germany. He bought a home in Mallorca and often works in his home office there. He owns the house 100%. From a German perspective, recently confirmed by the BFH (BFH dated November 17.11.2020, 72 - IR 16/2021, BStBl. II 484, XNUMX), there is a business split. The office is treated as an entrepreneurial holding company, the shares in the German GmbH become tax business assets of the Spanish holding company.

As a result, Germany could no longer tax the sale of the shares that are now resident in Spain for tax purposes and therefore taxes the tax on the increase in value of the shares at the time the home office begins to be used (Section 6 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 3 AStG). It doesn't help, like when you actually move away, if you change your mind later and return or give up your home office and only go on vacation in the house. Anyone who falls into this trap can immediately hand over their finca again if the values ​​are appropriate and see where they get the rest of the money from to pay the tax. The BFH had to decide the opposite case, i.e. domestic ownership and foreign operating company. When the BFH declares that the effects of the business split apply across borders, then this applies in all directions. This was obviously not taken into account.

This is a matter of case law and, as is well known, this must also be applied retroactively. It gets exciting when you've had your home office for many years. After checking the statute of limitations, you can inform the tax office that a home office has existed in Spain for many years. At that time, no one, not even the tax offices and tax courts, thought about the fact that a business split would have to be taken into account from now on. According to the BFH's latest ruling, the shares would have had to be taxed at the time. However, there was no fault in not disclosing this in the tax return. “Unfortunately” the tax has now expired. Spain does not have any division of operations and neither do the other countries. Ergo, you can now use the shares if the existing or

sell tax-free if you newly establish residency in Germany, for example if you relocate the shares back to Germany for tax purposes by ending the material connection. Because the so-called tax disentanglement does not require any active action or reporting to the tax office in the case of the compulsory assignment to a foreign owned company that arises purely through judicial law. To determine the capital gain, the original acquisition costs of the shares would not be taken into account, but rather the fictitious gain on the shares from the ownership company. The taxation of the withdrawal profit is the responsibility of the state in which the owned company is located, although taxation is not regularly carried out there because the artificially conceived invention of business splitting is not known and has never really been confirmed by the German legislature. With that you can Millions in winnings tax-free place. That is the good thing about the ax, which should be examined in view of the MoPeG and recent case law and, if necessary, applied to the existing structure.

Conclusion

Anyone who is involved in companies of any kind should subject them to a complete check-up. It is necessary, but often not enough, to be registered in the company or commercial register. In view of the new legal situation, it is advisable in many cases to change the statutes. But that's not enough either, at least not for subsidiaries abroad. Here the actual responsibilities and decision-making processes must be checked and, if necessary, re-regulated. Procedural documentation that is not just formal but properly done provides a good basis for this.

What is very important is the organization and accounting, including the annual financial statements, of the foreign subsidiary and their control by a person or a company that knows the legal system of both countries, especially German tax law in its internationally relevant area of ​​application.

Jürgen Bächle
Jurgen Bachle

has been working as an independent tax consultant and expert in international tax law since 1989 and has been a member of the board of the German Association of Tax Consultants Baden-Württemberg, DSTVBW, for over 20 years.

Social
Vimeo

By downloading the video you accept the privacy policy of Vimeo.
Read more

Load video

International tax advice

artax advises internationally active medium-sized companies and private individuals on an interdisciplinary basis in all matters of German and international tax law and related areas as well as in corporate strategy and location issues.

Subject-specific expert knowledge

Convince yourself of our expertise in the area of ​​national and international tax law, find out more about current case law and cross-border commuter issues and benefit from our in-depth specialist knowledge in creating individual tax strategies. Your tax law knowledge database – artax