Case C-164/12 DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-MItte
By Amita Chohan
German rules provide that when partnership interests are transferred by the means of a contribution to a capital company and the transferor receives shares in return, the transferred business assets are to be valued as part of a going concern if at the time of the granting of shares, the holder of the assets is no longer liable to tax in Germany on the gains that accrued from the transfer of those assets. However, investors who are still liable to tax in Germany are only taxed on capital gains once these are realised. These rules further provide that a transferor can opt to pay the tax due on unrealised capital gains either immediately or by way of deferment.
In this case, the transferors’ limited partnership (established in Austria) was dissolved upon the transfer of all of its interests to a German capital company. Under the relevant German rules, the value of the contributions of the limited partners was assessed to tax as part of a going concern, which meant that the unrealised capital gains on the interests in the capital company were immediately taxed.
The ECJ ruled that Article 63 TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that the legitimate objective of maintaining the balanced allocation of the power to impose taxes between Member States may justify a difference in the treatment of investors but only if it was impossible for Germany to tax capital gains, once realised. It was further ruled that where the taxation of unrealised capital gains is concerned, it is proportionate for the taxable person to be provided with the following payment options: (1) staggered; or (2) immediate.
This article appears in the JHA January 2014 Tax Newsletter, which also features:
- FII and Dividend Tax Update
- Tax Credit Claims Made Out Of Time by Alice McDonald
- Unjust Enrichment Defence Compatible with Equal Treatment by Alice McDonald
You can download the complete newsletter as a PDF below:
Navigating Domicile Enquiries: Recent Case Review
In recent months, the First-tier Tax Tribunal has presided over 3 headline grabbing domicile cases which, whilst offering little precedential value, set out some useful commentary on the multi factorial approach taken by HMRC and ultimately the tribunal in determining an individual’s domicile status. This note reviews the decisions made in Shah v HMRC  UK FTT 539 (TC), Strachan v HMRC  UKFTT 00617 (TC) and Coller v HMRC  UKFTT 212 (TC).
Mini Umbrella Companies (“MUCs”) Success at Tribunal (Labour Supply; Kittel fraud; Fini fraud)
Iain MacWhannell, instructing David Bedenham, successfully represented an employment intermediary in an appeal against a denial of input tax and £15 million VAT assessment.
The End is Nigh for the Non-Dom Regime
Published in ThoughtLeaders4 Private Client Magazine, Helen McGhee expert analysis of the current state of non-dom tax regime and it's future.
HMRC Makes Changes to COP9
On 14 June 2023, HMRC published a substantially rewritten Code of Practice 9 (“COP9”). Helen McGhee and Megan Durnford set out the key changes implemented as a result of this publication.
Pandora Papers: HMRC issues nudge letters
The Pandora Papers leak of almost 12m documents back in 2021 purportedly exposed the secret accounts and dealings (including potential tax evasion/ avoidance and money laundering) of 35 world leaders (including the late HM Elizabeth II), as well as many politicians and billionaires. The data was obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in Washington DC and led to one of the biggest ever global financial investigations.