Eine Insolvenz bleibt nicht ohne Folgen für eine steuerliche Organschaft.

Es existieren im Grundsatz zwei Formen der steuerlichen Organschaft: die körperschaft- und gewerbesteuerliche Organschaft, auch ertragsteuerliche Organschaft genannt, und die umsatzsteuerliche Organschaft. Gerät der Organträger oder eine Organgesellschaft in die Krise, kann dies erhebliche Auswirkungen auf den Bestand dieser Organschaften haben – insbesondere ab der Eröffnung eines Insolvenzverfahrens.

Gerät ein Unternehmen in die Krise oder gar in die Insolvenz stellen sich vielfältige Themen, auch steuerliche. Unsere neue Blogserie gibt den Überblick.

Unternehmen in der Krise haben häufig andere Sorgen als das Thema Steuern. Die steuerlichen Belange zu vernachlässigen kann aber sowohl vor wie auch in der Krise fatale Konsequenzen haben. Diese liegen im Steuerstrafrecht und in Haftungsrisiken – auch für die Beteiligten persönlich –, die wiederum den Sanierungserfolg torpedieren und selbst zur Existenzbedrohung werden können.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) continued with its extensive interpretation of the rules for contesting transactions under insolvency law in a judgment dated 21 February 2013 (BGH IX ZR 32/12). In the case before the court, direct shareholder A in company T sold a claim under a loan to B at below par value. Following assignment, T repaid the loan to B at the nominal amount plus interest. Insolvency proceedings were opened around two months later in relation to T’s assets. The BGH’s decision covers three aspects:

In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.

Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).

Following the entry into force of the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), an atypical silent shareholder must still be treated as a subordinate insolvency creditor for the purposes of section 39(1) no. 5 of the Insolvency Act (InsO) in the event that the company becomes insolvent, assuming the status of the silent shareholder is similar to that of a shareholder in a GmbH (private limited company).

In two recent judgments, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dealt with the resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion of a land charge and the resistance to insolvency of the claim for restitution of higher or equal ranking land charges which has been assigned for security purposes. Abandoning its existing case law, the BGH answered the question of resistance to insolvency of the statutory claim for deletion from the register as per section 1179a of the German Civil Code in the affirmative in its judgment dated 27 April 2012 (BGH, judgment of 27.04.2012 – V ZR 270 / 10).