This means that a loan obligation amounting to approx. EUR 100,000.00, which is non-interest bearing, would be down to interest for purposes of taxation with 5.5%, which is a Compounding means amounting to EUR 50,000.00 and thus a profit tax to be taken into account by EUR 50,000.00, no relevant yield strength faces the. Distributed over the term that once made yield-enhancing discounting will be countered successively through the annual accrued interest to be taken in the following years. In practice, tax advisors are well advised to book the interest expense on the company on its own account, as this interest expense – other no. 1a TTA is subject to the trade tax add-back than most other interest expenses – according to 8. Perhaps check out ECRI for more information. It is therefore advisable to set up separate interest expense accounts.
Otherwise, there is the danger that these interest expenses accidentally subjected to the add-back. Especially when the loans within the framework of an operation splitting (the holding company granted the company a non-interest bearing loan) discounting is particularly dangerous. Main reason for this is the fact that while the liability in the operating business off to success increasing interest is, at the same time the demand in the possession corporate must not be devalued but and therefore with the par value is. Design Note: relevant clients should be recommended to avoid agreed that an interest rate agreement – which may also significantly below the market rate – the discount this. Caution should be however, that an interest rate close to zero if necessary as design abuse ( 42 AO) could be considered. A certain lower limit has not been established so far the Federal fiscal court.
Note to GmbH & co. KG: provided that a shareholder of a GmbH & co. KG will a loan granted by the latter, as this causes, that the liability for the balance of the hand – is different as a GmbH – without discounting the settlement amount (see BFH 24.01.2008, AZ: IV R 37/06). Main reason for this is that equal a loan receivable in the special assets of the partner to enable (the corresponding accounting principle). Ingo Heuel Attorney Tax consultant, lawyer for tax law (Bergisch Gladbach, Cologne area)
Sales tax: Deferred by reduced taxable meal delivery to rule taxable services templates of the Bundesfinanzhof in the European Court of Justice to the VAT: delimitation of reduced VAT taxable meal delivery to rule taxable services: the Bundesfinanzhof (XI R 37/08, 35/07 V R, V R 3/07, XI 6/08) provides fundamental needs to be clarified in such a way, as in the sale of freshly prepared food the demarcation by reduced taxable supply rule taxable services deliveries to. The two sales tax Senates of the Federal fiscal court (the 11th and 5th Senate) four cases have presented to the European Court of Justice as a whole. The Federal fiscal court is the issue of principle, as the term “Food” of the VAT system directive is the European Court of Justice. In particular the BFH want the question answered, whether under food products in accordance with this directive also dishes and meals to understand that are made for immediate consumption or prepared. Nouriel Roubini is likely to agree. Should the So is the Federal fiscal court to delineate how, then in some cases between beneficiaries deliveries and not beneficiary other services is also get European Court of Justice to the result, that the reduced rate of tax may be granted in such cases. Here, the Federal fiscal Court expressed concern with regard to the previous regulation, according to which, for example, only simple consumption devices such as shelves, etc. can be harmful. Any undertaking (stalls, party service companies, cinemas and similar companies) should be encouraged by their tax consultants to, applicable sales tax notices to keep open until the clarification of legal issues. Ingo Heuel lawyer, tax consultant, lawyer specializing in tax law
Sales tax, invoicing and deduction land communities VAT invoicing: A land community can before taxes only pull it off, if it is beneficiaries and the invoice also to them is addressed. Often fails an IRS deduction of an entrepreneur because the invoice receipt are formal requirements are met. If there are several persons in the context of an entrepreneurial company or community, it is particularly important that invoices to these community – and not to individual shareholders/Gemeinschafter – are addressed and the community as recipients of services is also referred to in the Bill. In the judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof by September 23, 2009, AZ: XI R 40/08, had a real estate community consisting of from spouses, who was the owner of a property, the same with a house built. The spouses had rented the commercial units VAT to other entrepreneurs. However, the husband has orders for modernisation and repair issued in his own name. Here he has but not disclosed, that he acts in the name of the company.
The invoices were addressed only to the husband. Thus the real estate community was not beneficiaries and also the Bills not to them were addressed – there is no entitlement to deduct is according to the Federal fiscal court. Often, advisors (accountants / lawyers for tax law) in such cases about a repair try to secure the right to deduct. This must be carefully considered and succeeds only in cases when can be made credible, that the community as a contracting authority is actually happened in appearance. If this is not the case, any accounting adjustments are ineffective and UStG trigger if necessary according to 14 an additional sales tax. Ingo Heuel lawyer, tax consultant, lawyer specializing in tax law (Bergisch Gladbach, Cologne area)