• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
LinkedInTwitterYouTube
Private Equity Magazin
Advanced search
  • EN
  • DE

Private Equity Magazin

Private Equity Magazin

The magazine for private equity-professionals | Private Funds • M&A • Tax

  • Home
  • Latest news
    • Topic pages
  • Private Funds
  • M&A
  • Tax
  • Events
  • Background
    • Authors
    • About us
    • MUPET
    • Contact
  • DE
  • Advanced search
  • Monthly UpdatesPodcastLinkedInTwitterYouTube

Federal Ministry of Finance reacts to Wächtler decision of ECJ

German tax authorities do not grant a permanent and interest-free tax deferral when moving to Switzerland.

Tax

by Dr. Maximilian Haag, POELLATH, Dr. Christoph Philipp, POELLATH, Dr. Stephan Viskorf, POELLATH, Dr. Martin Liebernickel, POELLATH, Dr. Andreas Richter, POELLATH, Dr. Marcus Niermann, POELLATH
25 November 2019
  • European Community Law
  • exit law
  • European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The German tax authorities do not fully implement the equal treatment of taxpayers demanded by the ECJ.
Move to Switzerland – The German tax authorities do not fully implement the equal treatment of taxpayers demanded by the ECJ. Source: pavlofox/Fotolia

On 13 November 2019, the Federal Ministry of Finance issued a statement on the implementation of the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Wächtler case (26 February 2019 – C-581/17). The European Court of Justice had ruled that people who move from Germany to Switzerland must be treated equally with those who move to the EU/EEA area if they fall within the scope of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons between the EU and Switzerland.

However, the tax authorities do not fully implement this equal treatment: Within the scope of application of the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, a deferral of the exit tax is to be granted on the basis of Sec. 6 (4) sentence 1 AStG as follows:

  • The deferment is to be conducted in five equal annual installments.
  • Deferral interest is charged (6 percent p.a.).
  • A substantial hardship in the case of immediate collection shall be irrelevant.
  • There is no need for collateral security, unless there is reason to believe the tax claim may be jeopardized.

Contradiction to the EJC decision

The administrative regulation does not adequately implement the requirements of the ECJ. Accordingly, a move to Switzerland must be treated in the same way as a move to an EU/EEA country. This is because the free movement agreement between the EU and Switzerland also guarantees the taxpayer’s freedom of establishment. In this respect, it would have been expected that the tax authorities would also allow an unlimited and interest-free deferral of the exit tax when moving to Switzerland (Sec. 6 (5) AStG).

Consequences for the practice / course of action

When moving to Switzerland, the interest-free and unlimited deferment of payment can only be obtained by legal action. This does not seem futile. Objection procedures within the financial authorities will remain unsuccessful. However, the tax courts will take the ECJ case law into account in detail.

Outlook: Is the legislator planning to abolish the interest-free, indefinite deferment of payments also in the EU/EEA context?

The letter of the Federal Ministry of Finance explicitly states that it is ‘subject to a legal amendment’ and is therefore probably intended only as a transitional arrangement.

The letter thus reinforces the fear that the tax authorities will seek to amend the law in order to abolish the indefinite and interest-free deferral of the exit tax in favour of a tem-porally deferred payment of the exit tax (in accordance with the model in Sec. 4g Income Tax Act – EStG – regarding business assets being transferred from Germany to EU/EEA permanent establishments), even in the case of people moving within the EU/EEA.

It remains to be seen whether the legislator will follow this path within the context of the reform of the Foregin Tax Act (AStG), which is already under discussion. It cannot be ruled out that the legislator could introduce a retroactive regulation. However, it is doubtful whether such a provision might also apply to departures that have already been implemented prior to a public announcement of a corresponding amendment to the law (e.g. by cabinet resolution).

For taxpayers who are currently planning to move to Switzerland, but also to EU/EEA countries, there is likely to be a need for action in any case. It is advisable to implement the project swiftly before any planned legislative steps are concretized, in view of the possible retroactive effect.

 

More about this topic:
AFMP – German exit tax violates agreement between Switzerland and the EU
Moving into and out of Germany – When the fiscal authorities reach their limits

Print the article

  • twittern 
  • teilen 
  • mitteilen 
  • E-Mail 

The author

Dr. Maximilian Haag

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The author

Dr. Christoph Philipp

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The author

Dr. Stephan Viskorf

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The author

Dr. Martin Liebernickel

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The author

Dr. Andreas Richter

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

The author

Dr. Marcus Niermann

POELLATH

Profile | Contact

show all posts

Also interesting

  • Alternative Funds – Global Practice Guide 2020
  • The Private Wealth and Private Client Review
  • Drastic Tightening of Exit Tax as of 1 January 2022
  • Reorganisation Tax Act – Global Tax Neutrality of Mergers,…
Top
Private Equity Magazin
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Imprint
  • Data Protection Policy
Follow us on TwitterFollow us on LinkedInFollow us on YouTube

The experts of Private Equity