Relocation of functions

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Under transfer of functions is understood in the tax law in Germany the shift operational functions to foreign subsidiaries or permanent establishments . The tax treatment of relocations of functions was explicitly regulated by law for the first time with the 2008 corporate tax reform. The implementation took place through a reform of the external tax law. Details are regulated in the Function Relocation Ordinance (FVerlV). Relocated functions within the meaning of the External Tax Act must be subjected to an overall assessment so that the entire profit potential inherent in them can be taxed in Germany. Previously, only the assets transferred were assessed. The new regulations have been applicable since 2008 ( Section 12 FVerlV).

Objective of the regulation

The aim of the new regulation on the taxation of relocations of functions is to tax the so-called profit potential of a function in the form of the present value of the aggregated after-tax profits expected in the future from the relocated function ( Section 1 (4) FVerlV). This is to ensure that the tax base generated in Germany, i.e. not yet taxed (tax-entangled) profit components, is taxed once in Germany when relocating abroad. It is a form of exit tax . The regulations are to be seen in the context of the general efforts of the tax legislator to counteract the relocation of the tax base abroad. The expected additional income from the new regulation should also serve to counter-finance the reduction in the corporate tax rate as part of the 2008 corporate tax reform.

Concept of function

There is a legal definition of the term “function” in the Function Relocation Ordinance : “A function is a business activity that consists of a combination of similar operational tasks that are carried out by specific positions or departments in a company. It is an organic part of a company ... "( Section 1 Paragraph 1 Clause 1–2 FVerlV)

Rödder defines the function as an “economically separate or organizational area of ​​a company.” It is essential for understanding the function term that it is not an arbitrary collection of assets, but that the assets that make up the function are in a functional context have to stand. The function must be clearly distinguishable from other areas of the company so that it can be the subject of a uniform relocation process. In addition, the associated expenses and income as well as opportunities and risks must be properly delimited. A function must therefore have “a certain operational independence”. With regard to the factual feature of allocating expenses and income, certain parallels to the cash-generating unit in the IFRS can be seen .

Both primary and secondary value creation activities come into consideration as functions within the meaning of the AStG. This can e.g. B. the following operational areas : research and development , material procurement, warehousing, production , assembly , sales , marketing , customer service , quality control , financing. The existence of a partial operation within the meaning of tax law is not a prerequisite for the existence of a function.

Concept of functional relocation

definition

The relocation of functions is the fact to which the overall evaluation and thus the taxation of any potential profit is linked.

According to the Foreign Tax Act (AStG), a function is relocated if “a function, including the associated opportunities and risks and the assets and other benefits that have been transferred or leased out, are relocated”.

The more detailed definition of the Function Relocation Ordinance reads: “A function relocation within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 3 Clause 9 of the Foreign Tax Act exists if a company (relocating company) has goods and other benefits associated with it for another related company (taking over company) transfers associated opportunities and risks or allows them to be used so that the acquiring company can exercise a function that was previously exercised by the relocating company, and thereby the exercise of the relevant function is restricted by the relocating company. "( Section 1, Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 FVerlV)

An essential element of the fact is that after the relocation the function is no longer exercised by the relocating company or is at least limited. Therefore, if a function is doubled, there cannot be a function shift within the meaning of the law (see below).

Kroppen / Rasch / Eigelshoven speak of an “excessive” definition by the legislature, which will result in a very large number of cases having to be examined for the application of Section 1 (3) sentences 9 et seq. AStG.

chances and risks

What is particularly noteworthy about the legislator's definition is the inclusion of “opportunities and risks” and “other advantages”. This goes far beyond the internationally customary definition of the transfer of functions, which only includes the transfer of tasks. In international administrative practice, opportunities and risks are usually recorded as part of the function and risk analysis when determining transfer pricing and must be clearly separated from the function itself. Only through this broad definition, including opportunities and risks, can profit expectations be uncovered and taxed.

Opportunities and risks arise from self-employed entrepreneurial activity, in contrast to salaried activities. Risk types are, for example:

These risks can be offset by corresponding opportunities.

In the case of employment on the basis of contracts under the law of obligations, the risks decrease or disappear completely, while on the other hand the opportunities decrease accordingly. An example of this is in-house contract manufacturing, in which the services provided by the manufacturer are remunerated using the cost- plus method ( Section 2 (2) FVerlV). The contract manufacturer does not bear any price or cost risk here - accordingly, depending on the other circumstances, there could be a harmless shift in function (see below).

Other advantages

The indefinite legal term “other advantages” is intended as a catch- all element that is intended to cover facts that cannot be classified as intangible assets, goodwill or opportunities / risks. Scheffler cites as an example of an “other advantage” with shifted experience.

Temporary relocation of functions

A relocation of functions within the meaning of the AStG can also only be of a temporary nature ( Section 1 (2) sentence 2 FVerlV).

Successive relocations of functions

The transfer of the function to the company taking over does not have to take place in one go: Transactions which in their entirety meet the criteria for a relocation of functions can extend over a period of up to five years ( Section 1 (2) sentence 3 FVerlV). With this regulation, the legislature wants to prevent abusive arrangements. In order to achieve a tax-harmless relocation of functions, taxpayers would have to relocate successively over a period of more than five years . As a rule, this should not be possible for economic reasons.

Types of function relocations, delimitation issues

Outsourcing of functions

When functions are outsourced, a function is completely transferred to the company taking over, including the associated opportunities and risks. The function will then no longer be exercised at the transferring company. This is the case, for example, when the entire production, including the associated sales activities, is relocated to a subsidiary.

When functions are outsourced, there is a function shift within the meaning of the AStG. There is therefore an overall assessment and therefore a taxation of the profit potential.

Functional meltdown

In the event of a functional meltdown, opportunities and risks are transferred to the company taking over.

When the function is melted down, there is a function shift within the meaning of the AStG. There is therefore an overall assessment with taxation of the profit potential.

Function separation

When a function is split off, a (partial) function is relocated, although the associated opportunities and risks remain with the transferring company. A typical case of a function spin-off is contract manufacturing by a subsidiary, whereby the subsidiary delivers the services provided to the transferring company for a fixed fee - the sales risk, the price risk and the chance of market price increases remain with the transferring company.

Since no opportunities and risks are transferred when a function is split off, there is basically no function transfer within the meaning of the law. A spin-off of functions is in any case not to be qualified as a relocation of functions within the meaning of the AStG if it is merely a matter of providing an internal group service, e.g. B. Contract manufacturing without the transfer of (essential) intangible assets.

Brähler is of the opinion that a function spin-off can be qualified as a function transfer if it is not just a matter of pure services. This can be the case, for example, when essential intangible assets are also transferred. Materiality is given if the intangible assets are necessary for the exercise of the function and make up at least 25% of the value of the function. ( § 1 Abs. 5 FVerlV)

Function duplication

All previously described types of function relocation restrict the transferring company from the previous function through to the complete task. A duplication of functions, on the other hand, exists "if, without restricting the previous business activity of a company, a related company takes on a function performed by the first-mentioned company using its assets and advantages."

The BMF originally intended to equate cases of duplication of functions with relocations. However, the legislature refrained from this plan, since a relocation of functions requires a restriction of the function at the transferring company, which is not the case with the doubling. According to Brandenberg, profit potential generated abroad would in fact have been subject to taxation in Germany and, moreover, double taxation would have been the possible consequence. Such a regulation would very likely not have existed under European law anyway.

In the event of duplication of functions, the abuse clause in Section 1 (2) sentence 3 FVerlV (successive relocation) must be observed. If a function is first doubled and then later dismantled domestically, there is still a damaging function relocation if the five-year period is not observed.

Transfer of economic goods, rendering of services

A transfer of functions within the meaning of the AStG does not exist if only economic goods are transferred or made available for use or if only services are provided that are not part of a function transfer. According to the legislature, such matters would not be treated as a transfer of a complete function between external third parties, but as a sale of assets or the provision of services.

Posting of employees

The mere posting of employees is usually not a function transfer. In the opinion of the tax authorities, however, there can also be a shift in function in the case of secondments, “if the seconded personnel take their previous area of ​​responsibility with them from the sending company and perform the same activity in the receiving company after the posting. This usually leads to a restriction of the business activity of the sending company ... ”This view of the tax authorities is sharply criticized by Frotscher, since no arm's length case is conceivable in which a new employer pays the old employer a“ purchase price ”for the know-how of an employee pays. Frotscher comments sarcastically: "The question arises what kind of 'third-party settlement' the draftsman [sic!] Had in mind - slave trade?"

Further delimitation issues

In the following cases, the opportunities and risks remain with the relocating company. If these characteristics are met, there is no shift in function within the meaning of the AStG.

  • The decision-making powers regarding the relocated activities remain with the transferring company.
  • The transferring company bears the main risks (market risk, inventory risk, warranty risk).
  • Essential functions remain with the transferring company (e.g. financing, research and development, sales).
  • The transferring company remains the owner of the essential assets , in particular the intangible assets .
  • All production from the relocated activities will be delivered to the transferring company.
  • The customer of the services pays an arm's length remuneration.
  • Participation in a cost sharing agreement

taxation

Assessment basis

Analogous to sales processes, to which the relocation of functions is equated for tax purposes, the tax base results from the difference between the transfer price determined for the function and the sum of the tax accounting book values ​​of the assets that are transferred. This difference can include:

  • hidden reserves of the assets previously capitalized at the transferring company
  • (intangible) assets not yet capitalized
  • Goodwill / chance of winning / other benefits

Overall rating, profit potential

When evaluating the function, the principle of individual evaluation of the assets is deviated from; instead, an overall evaluation is carried out. For evaluation purposes, the function is viewed as a unit that generates profits through the interaction of the production factors it contains. This procedure is comparable to the overall evaluation within the framework of the company evaluation.

This overall assessment can reveal the potential for profit inherent in a function. The legislator defines the profit potential as follows: "Profit potential within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 3 Clause 6 of the External Tax Act is the net profits after tax (present value) to be expected from the relocated function, on which a tidy and conscientious manager within the meaning of Section 1 Paragraph 1 sentence 3 of the Foreign Tax Act would not waive free of charge from the perspective of the relocating company and for which such a manager would be willing to pay a fee from the perspective of the acquiring company. "( Section 1 Paragraph 4 FVerlV)

This means that future profits expected abroad will already be (partially) taxed in Germany in the present. The foreign state then has to waive the taxation of these profits on the basis of a double taxation agreement - otherwise double taxation occurs.

The evaluation of the function as a unit is the innovation, which enables the tax deduction of the profit potential inherent in the function. Until the new regulation came into effect, the transfer of functions and the transfer of assets between group companies in different tax jurisdictions were followed. H. only the tax transfer prices for the individual assets transferred were determined, whereby only the hidden reserves contained in the individual assets had to be disclosed and taxed. However, even before the corporate tax reform came into force in 2008, there was already some opinion in the literature that relocated functions should be treated as an overall package for the purposes of assessment.

Evaluation by actual comparison

As is always the case with intra-group cross-border transactions, the arm's length principle must be observed when assessing a relocated function . This means that a transfer price is to be determined as it would be found by independent parties on an external market for a transaction that is comparable with regard to all price-forming parameters. This is based on the fiction of a proper and conscientious manager, i.e. H. a price is to be assumed which such a person would be willing to pay given all relevant circumstances.

If the transfer price determined by a taxpayer deviates from the arm's length price, the tax authorities are entitled to make a corresponding correction. The AStG only provides for corrections at the expense of taxpayers. Accordingly, a transfer price that the tax authorities consider to be too low must be corrected upwards for a function relocation abroad. However, downward corrections are not provided.

A distinction must be made between the application of the unrestricted and restricted arm's length comparison (actual arm's length comparison) on the one hand and the hypothetical arm's length comparison on the other.

Insofar as an unrestricted or limited arm's length comparison is possible, the tax object is the relocated function to the extent that it would be based on the arm's length principle under independent, well-informed transaction partners and using the fiction of a prudent and conscientious manager for the purposes of the valuation. In this respect, the legislature cannot make any further specifications on the type and scope of the valuation basis, as this would contradict the nature of the unrestricted or limited arm's length comparison. In this case, the application of Section 1 Paragraph 3 Clause 9 AStG is ruled out, i. H. There is no need to determine a transfer package and therefore no profit potential. The profit potential results automatically from the arm's length transfer price for the entire function.

Assessment by hypothetical comparison

Determination of the transfer package

Since relocations of functions are practically always very special issues without comparable transactions in external markets, it can be assumed, according to Scheffler, that only the hypothetical arm's length comparison can be used here as a rule . In the hypothetical arm's length comparison, comparative transactions are simulated on external markets . Since there are no real role models, the legislature has a certain leeway - also within the framework of the arm's length principle - to enforce its ideas about how a transaction would run in practice and how the valuation basis would be determined.

The transfer package is the subject of the assessment in the hypothetical third-party comparison . This includes:

  • the relocated function
  • the opportunities and risks associated with this function
  • the assets and advantages that the relocating company transfers to the absorbing company together with the function or leaves them to use
  • the services provided in connection with the relocation.

In the assessment, individual synergy effects of the acquiring company as well as general location advantages in the country to which the transfer takes place must also be taken into account.

It is thus clear that the legislator has chosen a very comprehensive definition of the object of assessment, which is intended to ensure that the entire "profit potential" of the function is actually recorded. Above all, the indefinite legal term of the “advantages” transferred opens up a wide margin of discretion and under certain circumstances creates considerable legal uncertainty for the companies concerned.

Determination of the area of ​​agreement

When determining the profit potential of a transferred function in the context of the hypothetical arm's length comparison, the following procedure must be followed: The first step is to determine the total value of the transferring company before and after the relocation of the function. The negative difference is the lost profit potential. In the second step, the value of the acquiring company is determined before and after the relocation. The positive difference is the potential for profit gained. The area of agreement in which the arm's-length transfer price must lie is the value range between the minimum requirement of the relocating company and the maximum price that the company taking over is willing to pay. Within the range of agreement, the most likely value is to choose the mean value as the transfer price in case of doubt.

Application of cash value calculations based on investment theory

The valuation according to the procedure described in the previous paragraph must be carried out by means of an income value-oriented valuation method. The discounted cash flow method or the discounted earnings method can be used for this. The present value is to be determined on the basis of the planning calculations of both the transferring and the receiving company. Synergy effects and location advantages must be taken into account here. In principle, the assessment is based on an infinite time horizon ( perpetual annuity ). This can be deviated from if the taxpayer can prove that the relocation of functions is only of a temporary nature. For the discounting , a function and risk-adequate capitalization interest rate is to be selected.

Escape clause

The AStG contains an escape clause, which in certain cases also allows an individual assessment in the event of a relocation of functions: In the event of a relocation of functions, the determination of transfer prices for all affected individual assets and services must be recognized after making appropriate adjustments if the taxpayer can credibly demonstrate that

  • no significant intangible assets and advantages have been transferred with the function or have been made available for use or that
  • the overall result of the individual price determinations, measured against the price determination for the transfer package as a whole, corresponds to the arm's length principle.

Taxation depending on the taxable person

If the tax subjects are sole proprietorships or co-entrepreneurs in a partnership , the profit made when a function is relocated is subject to collectively agreed income tax and trade tax .

In the case of corporations , the profit is initially subject to corporation tax and trade tax at the corporate level . Distributed profits (as a rule, they will only accrue at a later point in time) are also subject to taxation by the recipients.

Relocation to Germany (inbound case)

In the justification for the Corporate Tax Reform Act 2008, the legislator had already stated that the relocation of functions to Germany (inbound cases) should be treated in the same way as outbound cases for tax purposes. Although the AStG only provides for adjustments to the detriment of taxpayers, if necessary, adjustments in favor of taxpayers can also be made according to other legal norms, e.g. in the context of hidden profit distributions. In the administrative principles for relocation of functions , the equal treatment of outbound and inbound cases was clarified once again. However, there are still uncertainties regarding the concrete implementation of this intended equal treatment.

Assessment in literature

Taxation of Profit Expectations

The dissolution and taxation of hidden reserves in the event of sales transactions or similar matters (e.g. in conversion tax law) is common practice in German income tax law as well as internationally. This also applies to hidden reserves of valuation units (transfer of operations or sub-operations). In such cases, for example, goodwill can also be de-strangled and taxed for tax purposes. However, in the opinion of many commentators, the new regulations for the assessment and taxation of relocated functions go beyond this common practice, as future profits are to be taxed that did not arise in Germany, and in some cases could not have arisen in Germany (see below) . According to Hofacker, a "completely new profit realization situation ... [created] that breaks the system of profit taxation."

Compatibility with international administrative practice

In the literature, the view is partly taken that the new regulation on the taxation of relocations of functions violates the arm's length principle in some aspects and thus contradicts Art. 9 of the OECD model convention to avoid double taxation (see: double taxation convention ) .

Although the OECD-MA does not constitute binding international law, it is an essential basis for international administrative practice. Experts therefore fear that the German regulations on the taxation of the relocation of functions could meet with a lack of international acceptance. However, if the country of domicile of the acquiring company does not accept the German regulations, double taxation of income may occur if this cannot be avoided through mutual agreement procedures. Welling / Tiemann are of the opinion that the new regulations on the taxation of the relocation of functions will lead to serious double taxation conflicts.

Among other things, the following are criticized as internationally unusual or not in conformity with arm's length standards:

  • The overall evaluation of a transfer package if the individual assets do not form an inseparable unit and can also be evaluated individually without any problems
  • the inclusion of synergy effects and location advantages of the receiving company in the evaluation - a proper managing director would not reward any profit potential that does not yet exist at the time of the transaction
  • the separate pricing of opportunities and risks and other benefits

Welling / Tiemann assume that a transfer price determined by an overall assessment is not likely to be recognized by foreign tax authorities in the event of a relocation of functions. Kroppen / Rasch state: "The regulations remain unique internationally, have not been coordinated and represent a considerable risk of double taxation."

Compatibility with the territorial principle

Furthermore, some of the literature takes the view that the regulations violate the territorial principle. This is to prevent states from levying taxes to which they are not entitled. When determining the profit potential of a function, synergies and location advantages of the receiving company must also be taken into account. The profit potential is thus increased through success components that may not have arisen in Germany at all. As far as foreign location advantages are concerned (e.g. low wage costs), according to the express will of the legislature, success components are to be taken into account that could not have arisen in Germany purely from a purely factual logic. In this respect, it is therefore possibly an unjustified taxation. However, Jahndorf sees no violation of the territorial principle: the profit potential was created in Germany and it is therefore legitimate to tax it in Germany as well.

Compatibility with EU law

With regard to compatibility with EU law, the prohibition of discrimination is particularly relevant. In order to be in conformity with EU law in this respect, a relocation of a function abroad must be taxed in the same way as a purely domestic matter, unless unequal treatment can be objectively justified. Functional relocations in Germany are usually either profit-realizing sales transactions or profit-realizing processes caused by company law (hidden profit distributions or deposits). Thus, at least for taxation purposes, there is a tax-relevant profit realization even with domestic relocations of functions. In the case of domestic sales of partial businesses or other parts of the business that are to be treated as valuation units for tax purposes, an overall valuation is also carried out, whereby any goodwill that may be present is realized. According to Jahndorf, domestic issues are therefore essentially on an equal footing with the relocation of functions abroad, so that, according to the author, there is no discrimination within the meaning of EU law. Other authors, on the other hand, see the taxation of the profit potential of a relocated function as a violation of both the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital in the EU, without any apparent justification.

See also

Legal sources

  • External Tax Act
  • Ordinance on the application of the arm's length principle in accordance with Section 1 (1) of the Foreign Tax Act in cases of cross-border relocation of functions (Function Relocation Ordinance - FVerlV) of August 12, 2008 ( Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1680 ).
  • Only binding for the financial administration: Principles for examining the income allocation between related parties in cases of cross-border relocation of functions (administrative principles of relocation of functions)

Individual evidence

  1. ^ OV: BMF: Administrative principles, relocation of functions. In: The company. Issue 43, 2010, p. 21.
  2. ↑ Th. Rödder: Unternehmenssteuerreformgesetz 2008. In: German tax law. 45th year 2007, supplement to issue 40/2007, pp. 1–20, 15.
  3. ^ M. Schwenke: Contribution to the discussion. In: A. Richter, B. Welling: Conference and discussion report on the 25th Berlin tax talks on the subject of relocation of functions. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 71-78, p. 72.
  4. ↑ P. Zimmermann: The decision to relocate functions in the group: An analysis of the interaction of the price limits of the decision-makers involved. Springer 2013, p. 34.
  5. ↑ Administrative principles for the relocation of functions, margin number 18.
  6. ^ HB Brandenberg: Current Developments in International Tax Law. In: Operations consultant. 17/2008, pp. 864-875.
  7. ↑ Administrative principles for the relocation of functions, margin number 15.
  8. ↑ § 1, Paragraph 3, Clause 9 AStG.
  9. ↑ H.-K. Kroppen, S. Rasch: The Function Relocation Ordinance . In: IWB Fach 3 Gruppe 1. Verlag Neue Wirtschafts-Briefe, Herne 2008, pp. 2339 ff.
  10. ↑ G. Brähler, N. Langensiepen, S. Wurst: International Tax Law: Basics for studying and tax advisor examination. Springer-Verlag, 2009, ISBN 978-3-8349-8017-5 , p. 445.
  11. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation. Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 464.
  12. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation. Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 513.
  13. ^ Haufe-Lexware (ed.): Tax changes 2010. Verlag Haufe-Lexware, 2010, ISBN 978-3-448-10240-6 , p. 455.
  14. ↑ G. Brähler: International Tax Law: Basics for Studies and Tax Advisor Examination. Springer 2012, p. 460.
  15. ↑ Th. Rödder: Unternehmenssteuerreformgesetz 2008. In: German tax law. 45th year, bound-in to issue 40/2007, pp. 1–20, 15.
  16. ^ G. Brähler, Ch. Lösel: German and international tax law: Present and future Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. Springer 2008, p. 88.
  17. ↑ G. Brähler: International Tax Law: Basics for Studies and Tax Advisor Examination. Springer 2012, p. 460.
  18. ↑ Ch. Jahndorf: Taxation of the relocation of functions. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 3/2008, pp. 101-111, 107.
  19. ^ HB Brandenberg: Current Developments in International Tax Law. In: BB. 17/2008, pp. 864-875.
  20. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation. Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 514.
  21. ↑ Administrative principles for the relocation of functions, margin number 54.
  22. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation. Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 513.
  23. ↑ Administrative principles for the relocation of functions, margin number 56.
  24. ↑ G. Frotscher: Relocation of functions, online at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.berlinersteuergespraeche.de
  25. ^ HB Brandenberg: Current Developments in International Tax Law. In: BB. 17/2008, pp. 864-875.
  26. ↑ Administrative principles for relocation of functions, margin number 50.
  27. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation . Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 464.
  28. ↑ Ch. Jahndorf: Taxation of the relocation of functions. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 3/2008, pp. 101-111.
  29. ↑ Th. Rödder: Unternehmenssteuerreformgesetz 2008. In: DStR. 45th year 2007, supplement to issue 40/2007, pp. 1–20, 16.
  30. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation. Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 514.
  31. ↑ § 1 Abs. 3 FVerlV.
  32. ↑ Ch. Jahndorf: Taxation of the relocation of functions. In: Finanz Rundschau. 3/2008, pp. 101-111.
  33. ^ W. Scheffler: International business taxation. Vahlens handbooks of economics and social sciences. 3. Edition. Vahlen, 2011, ISBN 978-3-8006-4406-3 , p. 515.
  34. ↑ Administrative principles for the relocation of functions, margin numbers 87-88.
  35. ^ HB Brandenberg: Current Developments in International Tax Law. In: Operations consultant. 17/2008, pp. 864-875.
  36. ^ HB Brandenberg: Current Developments in International Tax Law. In: Betriebsberater. 17/2008, pp. 864-875.
  37. ↑ BT-Drucksache 16/4841, government draft of the Corporate Tax Reform Act 2008, p. 86.
  38. ↑ Administrative principles for the relocation of functions, margin number 3.
  39. ^ OV: BMF: Administrative principles, relocation of functions. In: The company. Issue 43, 2010, p. 21.
  40. ^ M. Hofacker: Correction of Income § 1 AStG. In: F. Haase (Ed.): External Tax Law, Double Taxation Agreement. Heidelberg commentary. 2nd Edition. Hüthig Jehle Rehm, 2013, margin number 299.
  41. ^ M. Schwenke: Contribution to the discussion. In: A. Richter, B. Welling: Conference and discussion report on the 25th Berlin tax talks on the subject of relocation of functions. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 71-78.
  42. ↑ G. Frotscher: Relocation of functions, online at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.berlinersteuergespraeche.de
  43. ^ B. Welling, K. Tiemann: Ordinance on the relocation of functions in conflict with international law. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 68-71.
  44. ↑ B. Welling: Exaggerated volume expectations provoke national solo efforts. In: The operation status law. 3/2008, p. 105.
  45. ^ B. Welling, K. Tiemann: Ordinance on the relocation of functions in conflict with international law. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 68-71.
  46. ^ B. Welling, K. Tiemann: Ordinance on the relocation of functions in conflict with international law. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 68-71.
  47. ↑ G. Frotscher: Fundamentals of the relocation of functions. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 49-57.
  48. ↑ B. Welling: Exaggerated volume expectations provoke national solo efforts. In: The operation status law. 3/2008, p. 105.
  49. ^ B. Welling, K. Tiemann: Ordinance on the relocation of functions in conflict with international law. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 68-71.
  50. ↑ H.-K. Kroppen, S. Rasch: The Function Relocation Ordinance . In: IWB Fach 3 Gruppe 1. Verlag Neue Wirtschafts-Briefe, Herne 2008, pp. 2339 ff.
  51. ^ B. Welling, K. Tiemann: Ordinance on the relocation of functions in conflict with international law. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 68-71.
  52. ↑ G. Frotscher: Fundamentals of the relocation of functions. In: Finanz-Rundschau. 2/2008, pp. 49-57.
  53. ^ G. Frotscher: Functional shift . online at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.berlinersteuergespraeche.de
  54. ↑ Ch. Jahndorf: Taxation of the relocation of functions. In: FR. 3/2008, pp. 101-111.
  55. ↑ Ch. Jahndorf: Taxation of the relocation of functions. In: FR. 3/2008, pp. 101-111.
  56. ^ G. Frotscher: Functional shift . online at: Archive link ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.berlinersteuergespraeche.de
  57. ↑ Rolf, Th .: The taxation of relocations of functions in accordance with Section 1 (3) AStG is illegal under European law. In: International Tax Law. 2009, pp. 152-156.