Date | File reference/Case | Reference

07.02.1974 | C-115/78 Knoors | Coll. 1979, 399

20.02.1979 | C-120/78 Rewe/Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein | Coll. 1979, 649

06.10.1981 | C-246/80 Broekmeulen | ECR 1981, 2311

27.09.1988 | 81/87 Daily Mail | Coll. 1988, 5483

03.10.1990 | C-61/89 Bochoucha | Coll. 1990, I-3551

25.07.1991 | C-111/89 Factortame II | Coll. 1991, I-3905

30.11.1995 | C-55/94 Gebhard | Coll. 1995, I-14165

15.05.1997 | C-250/95 Futura Participations and Singer/Administration des contributions | Coll. 1997, I-2471

16.07.1998 | C-264/96 ICI | ECR. 1998, I-4695

21.11.2002 | C-436/00 X and Y | Coll. 2002, I-10847

12.12.2002 | Lankhorst-Hohorst | Coll. 2002, I-11779

11.03.2004 | C-9/02 Hughes de Lasteryrie du Saillant | Coll. 2004, I-2409

13.12.2005 | C-446/03 Marks & Spencer | Coll. 2006, I-10837

07.09.2006 | C-470/04 N | Coll. 2006, I-7409

12.09.2006 | C- 196/04 Cadburry Schweppes | Coll. 2006, I-7995

03.10.2006 | C-290/04 Scorpio | Coll. 2006, I-9461

15.05.2008 | C-414/06 Lidl Belgium | ECR 2008, I-13601

16.12.2008 | C-210/06 Cartesio | Coll. 2008, I-9641

11.11.2010 | C-543/08 Commission /

Portugal | Coll. 2010, I-11241

10.02.2011 | C-436/08 Haribo Licorice Hans Riegel and Austrian Saltworks | Coll. 2011, I-305

29.11.2011 | C-371/10 National Grid Indus | EuZW 2011, 951

12.07.2012 | C-269/09 Commission/Spain | EuZW 2013,34

06.09.2012 | C-38/10 Commission v Portugal | IStR 2012, 763

18.10.2012 | C-498/10 X | EuZW 2013,156

31.01.2013 | C-301/11 Commission/Netherlands | BeckRS 2013, 80253

25.04.2013 | C-64/11 Commission/Spain | BeckRS 2013, 80339

18.07.2013 | C-261/11 Commission / Denmark | BeckRS 2013, 81546

23.01.2014 | C-164/12 DMC | ECLI:EU:C:2014:20

21.05.2015 | C-657/13 Verder LabTec | ECLI:EU:C:2015: 331

17.12.2015 | C- 388/14 Timac Agro | ECLI:EU:C:2015: 829

21.12.2016 | C-503/14 Commission/Portugal | ECLI:EU:C:2016: 979

23.11.2017 | C-292/16 A Oy | ECLI:EU:C:2017: 888

26.02.2019 | C-581/17 | ECLI:EU:C2019 138

Date | File reference/Case | Reference

26.01.1977 | VIII R 109/75 | BStBl. II 1977, 283

Date | Court/Reference | Reference

06.11.2000 | FG Münster 9 K 6931/98 K | EFG 2001, 234

07.01.2011 | FG Rhineland-Palatinate 1 V1217/10 | EFG 2011, 1096

31.10.2019 | FG Münster 1 K 3448/17E | EFG 2020, 19

Authority | Date | File reference | Reference

Federal Ministry of Finance | 24.12.1999 | IV B 4- S1300-111/99 | BStBl. I 1999, 1076

Federal Ministry of Finance | 14.05.2004 | IV B 4-S 1340-11/04 | BStBl. I 2004, 3

The new regulation of exit taxation requires an analysis of its conformity with European law. This analysis is based on issues relating to the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, which are important fundamental rights of all EU citizens.

Every year, more than 270,000 citizens from the Federal Republic of Germany[1] forgive and thus also lay down their local unlimited tax liability. In many cases, this also means that the assets created by the taxpayer in Germany are withdrawn from the German taxation law.

Since these assets were created in Germany by domestic resources, know-how and capital, it also corresponds to the idea of territorial taxation that Germany does not lose the right to tax these gains by moving away. While in the business sector the taxation right is secured by a number of so-called "unentanglement regulations", in the private sector a loss or a restriction of the German taxation law is basically without tax consequences, but with one exception:

In order to avoid tax avoidance, the legislature introduced the so-called “exit taxation” in § 6 AStG in 1972. According to this, shareholders are taxed on their capital gains in accordance with § 17 EStG. [3] Due to the high valuations of the share capital participation, there are often high tax burdens that

Deter taxpayers from moving abroad or even making it impossible. [] 4]

Because the move of EU citizens to an EU/EEA foreign country is therefore associated with higher tax consequences than the pure domestic move, this regulation was questionable from the outset under European law. When the ECJ with its judgments in the case Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant[5] and the case N[6] classified the French and Dutch exit taxation as contrary to European law, the German legislature led in the framework of the SEStEG in 2006 in § 6 para. 5 AStG provides an unlimited deferral option for departure cases within the EU/EEA area. [7]

After the ECJ in Rs. DMC[8] and Verder LabTec[9] in 2014 and 2015 in the area of operational de-engagement classified a permanent deferral under European law as no longer necessary and taxation in five or more cases was imposed. has assessed ten annual instalments as still proportionate, the Federal Ministry of Finance also considers taxation in five annual instalments at the private level

compliant with European law. According to the Federal Ministry of Finance, this thesis is supported by the fact that in the operational area ATAD now makes a rating taxation in five annual installments mandatory for all EU/EEA states. Accordingly, the Federal Ministry on the 10. December 2019 announced a draft for the implementation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD)[10], in which in particular the previously applicable deferral option for EU/EEA deportation cases is to be replaced in the future by a seven-year installment payment. However, this new regulation must be critically assessed in particular with regard to the following issues: