Überblick
Immobilienhaltende Auslandsgesellschaften können eine inländische Betriebsstätte begründen, wenn sie Verwaltungsdienstleistungen auf einen Dienstleister im Inland auslagern. Der BFH konkretisiert für diese Fälle in seinem jüngst veröffentlichten Urteil vom 23.03.2022, III R 35/20, die Anforderungen für die Annahme einer inländischen Betriebsstätte. Relevant ist dies für sog. Non-PE-Strukturen, da deren Mieterträge und Veräußerungsgewinne bei Vorliegen einer bislang unerkannten Betriebssttätte der Gerbesteuerpflicht unterliegen könnten.
In Abgrenzung zur Vorinstanz (FG Berlin-Brandenburg) stellt der BFH klar, dass die Räumlichkeiten einer beauftragten Management- oder Dienstleistungsgesellschaft ohne entsprechende Verfügungsmacht nur in Ausnahmefällen, inbesondere bei identischer Organbesetzung oder der tatsächlichen, fortlaufenden Überwachung vor Ort durch den Auftraggeber, eine eigene Betriebsstätte des Auftraggebers begründen können.
Allerdings kann eine inländische (Geschäftsleitungs-)Betriebsstätte des Auftraggebers auch dann vorliegen, wenn aufgrund der Art und des Umfangs der übertragenen Tätigkeiten die tatsächliche Geschäftsleitung ganz oder teilweise von einen Dienstleister ausgeführt wird.
Weitere Informationen
BACKGROUND
- Foreign companies with domestic real estate are subject to German trade tax only if they are commercial entities and maintain a permanent establishment in Germany.
- A permanent establishment generally requires a business facility or installation with a fixed relationship to the earth’s surface, which is of a certain duration, serves the activities of the business, and over which the taxpayer has a power of disposal that is not merely temporary.
- However, a management permanent establishment can also be located in the business premises of a third party and does not necessarily require the power of disposal over a fixed facility or installation.
- In the judgment of the lower court (Fiscal Court of Berlin-Brandenburg, November 21, 2019, 9 K 11108/17), low hurdles were defined for a permanent establishment of the principal in the premises of a service provider. Thus, it should already be sufficient that the principal can monitor the activities of the service provider on site. Accordingly, “close economic ties” and “business relationships lasting several years” between the principal provider and associated management companies should also speak in favor of a domestic permanent establishment.
- From a practical perspective, the judgment of the Fiscal Court Berlin-Brandenburg has led to considerable legal uncertainty as asset-related administrative services provided by service providers in Germany have also become the focus of an undetected permanent establishment.
CLARIFICATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT BY THE FEDERAL FISCAL COURT (MARCH 23, 2022, III R 35/20)
WITHOUT THE POWER TO DISPOSAL, THE PREMISES A SERVICE PROVIDER CAN ONLY ASSIGN A PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT TO THE PRINCIPAL IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES.
- The Federal Fiscal Court has decided that by commissioning a service/management company without power of disposal over its premises, a permanent establishment of the principal is only established if the principal carries out its own business activities at the relevant location with a certain degree of sustainability.
- The mere delegation of comprehensive tasks without the simultaneous performance of the company’s own on-site business activities is not sufficient.
- An own business activity on site can be assumed if (i) actual, continuous monitoring measures are carried out on site or (ii) there is an identity of the management bodies (in particular, if the managing directors are identical).
EXTENSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CAN, HOWEVER, LEAD TO THE ASSUMPTION OF A MANAGEMENT PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT
- However, according to the Federal Fiscal Court, the extensive transfer of management and administrative services can lead to a domestic management permanent establishment. The lower Fiscal Court recently took a similar position (Fiscal Court of Munich, November 5, 2020, 10 V 1479/20)
- The decisive criterion for management measures is the so-called “day-to-day business activities”, which are to be determined individually for each company. In a non-exhaustive list, the Federal Fiscal Court names as relevant activities the actual representation vis-à-vis banks, tax offices, and other institutions, unrestricted permission to independently conclude and terminate rental agreements as well as service and work contracts, bookkeeping, preparation of tax returns, and other current business transactions.
- In case of several potential management permanent establishments, the place of effective management would also have to be determined based on a weighting of the importance of the measures carried out in the individual permanent establishments.
- If there is only a domestic management permanent establishment or if the place of effective management is in Germany, it should be noted that a foreign corporation could be subject to unlimited tax liability in Germany. As a result, profit distributions could be subject to German withholding tax.
CONSEQUENCES FOR PRACTICE
- The Federal Fiscal Court’s narrowing of the requirements for a permanent establishment as determined by the Fiscal Court of Berlin-Brandenburg should provide more legal certainty for foreign companies with domestic real estate. Accordingly, the mere possibility of monitoring the service provider as well as economic interactions beyond the specific service relationship (possibly with affiliated companies) should not yet be sufficient for the assumption of a permanent establishment. However, ongoing on-site monitoring measures and an identity of the management bodies should still be avoided.
- For non-PE structures, however, it should still be noted that the transfer of management and administrative services can lead to a domestic management permanent establishment. Against this background, service catalogs for service agreements as well as the granted powers of attorney should therefore also be carefully designed.