Germany is frequently used by advisers and managers for the formation of venture capital, private equity and similar closed-end alternative investment funds (AIFs), as well as for retail funds whenever the manager of the respective investment fund is located in Germany – ie, Germany is generally not used as a domicile for structuring alternative investment funds or retail funds by non-German advisers or managers. Typically, German private equity or venture capital funds are structured as limited partnerships that are transparent for German tax purposes.
German resident institutional investors and German family offices are frequent targets of fundraising activities for venture capital, private equity and similar alternative investment funds located in Germany or various other jurisdictions around the world.
The typical legal forms of investment funds used in Germany are limited partnerships, investment stock corporations and contractual funds with no legal personality of their own (Sondervermögen). The most frequently used legal form for private funds is the limited partnership, whereas retail funds, undertakings for the collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) funds and real estate funds are more often structured as contractual funds. A key difference is that a limited partnership is transparent for German tax purposes, whereas the rules of the German Investment Tax Act apply in respect of corporate fund structures and contractual funds treating such funds as opaque entities.
The process for setting up an investment fund in Germany differs for registered sub-threshold managers and fully licensed managers of alternative investment funds. The regulation of investment funds in Germany is primarily exercised through the regulation of the respective manager, who is required to apply for a full licence or to be registered with the German supervisory authority for financial services (BaFin) under the German Investment Code (KAGB). The KAGB implements the European Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD) rules into German law.
Registered Managers – Registration Process
Availability
This registration process is available to certain small or medium-sized managers only. The most important category of these small to medium-sized managers is known as a “sub-threshold manager” under the AIFMD and KAGB. In practice, many German alternative investment fund managers outside the real estate area still fall within this category.
Sub-threshold managers under the KAGB are managers with assets under management of not more than EUR500 million with no leverage at fund level, or not more than EUR100 million if there is leverage at fund level, and who manage so-called special alternative investment funds (“Special AIFs”) only. Special AIFs are AIFs whose interests or shares may only be acquired by professional investors or semi-professional investors (ie, non-retail funds).
Registration procedure
The registration process is relatively simple. It requires the submission of a registration request together with certain documents on the manager and the investment fund(s) the manager intends to manage (such as the fund’s anticipated strategy and investor base and the manager’s articles of association). In addition, a Special AIF may not require the investors to pay in capital in excess of their respective original capital commitment.
Ongoing compliance issues
An advantage of the registration is that only a few provisions of the KAGB apply to “registered-only” managers – mainly the provisions on the registration requirements, some ongoing reporting requirements and the general supervisory powers of BaFin. However, fund-specific requirements do not apply to “registered-only” managers and their funds. In particular, the depository requirements and marketing requirements do not apply, nor do the additional requirements of the KAGB for fully licensed managers, except that certain additional internal governance and reporting obligations apply to the extent that any debt funds are managed which may even be lifted to some extent if the current proposal of the law implementing the recent revision of AIFMD (“AIFMD II”) is adopted.
In exchange for such light regulation, “registered-only” managers do not benefit from the European marketing passport under the AIFMD. A registered manager can, however, opt to become a fully licensed manager (or upgrade to be a European Venture Capital Fund (EuVECA) manager). Since 2021, “registered-only” managers are required to audit their annual financial statements. Such audit must include a review of compliance with the KAGB and German anti-money laundering law.
Fully Licensed Manager – Licensing Process
Availability
Fund managers who do not qualify for a registration or who opt to upgrade must apply for a full fund management licence with BaFin under the KAGB. A full fund management licence opens a door for managers to market funds to retail investors, and also gives access to the marketing passport under the AIFMD. Retail investors are neither professional nor semi-professional investors.
Licensing procedure
The licensing procedure is a fully fledged authorisation process with requirements equivalent to the requirements for granting permission under Article 8 of the AIFMD or Article 6 of the UCITS Directive. The licensing procedure checks requirements such as sufficient initial capital or owned funds, adequate experience of the directors, sufficiently good repute of the directors and shareholders, and organisational structure of the manager.
Ongoing issues
The licensing of the manager results in the manager being subject to the entirety of the KAGB, which entails the following in particular:
Investors admitted to investment funds in Germany typically benefit from limited liability. As limited partners of a limited partnership, which is the most frequently used structure for alternative investment funds in Germany, their liability in relation to third parties for obligations of the fund is limited to their respective liability amount registered with the commercial register of the respective fund partnership. The liability amount is typically a small portion (ie, 0.1%) of their capital commitment or a small fixed amount. Once this portion of their capital commitment has been contributed to the alternative investment fund, their liability in relation to third parties ceases to exist.
Regarding the relationship of the investors to the alternative investment fund itself, the liability is restricted to the unpaid portion of the investor’s capital commitment. For fund structures other than limited partnerships, an even stricter limitation of liability applies. Legal opinions are commonly issued to confirm such limitation of liability.
For the usual AIFs that are marketed to non-retail investors, there is no legal requirement to issue a private placement memorandum (PPM); however, all fund managers are subject to the SFDR disclosure obligations and disclosures under Article 23 of the AIFMD must be provided if the fund is marketed under the AIFMD. In any case, a PPM is often produced for all AIFs to ensure that the investors are informed – completely and correctly, and in a non-misleading manner – about the respective AIF, its management, its investment strategy, the risks associated with an investment and the expected tax consequences of the investment. These disclosures are recommended in order to avoid the liability of the sponsor or managers under general prospectus liability rules.
If the fund is marketed to semi-professional investors, a key information document (KID) must be produced.
There are annual reporting requirements for managers of retail funds and managers of non-retail funds. There are also semi-annual reporting requirements for contractual funds and investment stock corporations (AG) with variable capital. The reports need to be published.
Furthermore, notification requirements implementing Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 for cross-border tax arrangements apply for intermediaries of funds (usually the fund manager).
During the last two decades, alternative funds have experienced a considerable and increasing capital inflow from German institutional investors, in particular professional pension schemes, insurance companies, pension funds and banks, CTAs and public investors which are often motivated by reasons of broader structural economic policy. Institutional investors often use managed accounts set up as single or group investor funds. Whereas, the majority of investors used to invest via large open-end fund vehicles allowing for a portion (mostly 20%) to be invested in closed-ended AIFs, due to a recent expansion of the regulatory toolbox for German investment funds, an increasing number of investors uses asset class vehicles structured as closed-end funds for alternative investments.
Legal structures depend on investors’ specific requirements and preferences. The legal structures for private funds in which most types of investors are usually prepared to invest are limited partnerships and, particularly regarding real estate, contractual funds. However, specific structural requirements apply for certain types of investors.
Certain non-taxable or tax-exempt investors, including most pension funds, can only invest in business-type partnerships if certain conditions and thresholds are met. Investments by semi-transparent investment funds have to check the eligibility of investments in closed-end funds on a case-by-case basis. Generally, eligibility of closed-end funds for certain types of open-end funds is subject to legislative review due to ESMA’s review of the Eligible Assets Directive concerning UCITS on the one hand and German domestic legislation intending to attract institutional money for investments in infrastructure, energy transition and innovation on the other hand.
German pension funds that are subject to German domestic insurance regulation (Solvency I investors) usually prefer investment funds that are managed by a regulated manager. Requirements regarding the provenance and regulatory status of the fund depend on the classification of the fund. For private equity funds, fund vehicles and managers that have their seats within an EU/EEA country or Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member state and that have a manager regulation that is at least comparable to the regulation of a sub-threshold alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) are sufficient. For a fund to qualify as a private equity fund, it needs to be closed-ended and may only invest in certain types of corporate finance instruments. Funds with investment policies covering instruments beyond equity and equity-like instruments require special scrutiny in this respect. Recent legislation has clarified that private equity funds may also be used to invest in both equity and debt of public–private partnership and other infrastructure projects. For all other types of funds, only EU/EEA vehicles with full-scope AIFMs with an EU/EEA seat are eligible as AIF investments.
Interests in closed-end funds held by Solvency I investors or Solvency II investors need to be transferable without the prior consent of the general partner, manager or any other investor, as long as the interests are transferred to another institutional (or other creditworthy) investor. At the same time, the fund documents might need to contain specific language clarifying that an interest can only be transferred upon the prior written consent of a trustee appointed by the investor to safeguard the investor’s assets, dedicated to covering a client’s claims against the insurer.
There are no general restrictions for investors investing in investment funds. However, certain restrictions apply to specific types of investors – eg, Solvency I investors may not invest in investment funds that directly invest in working capital or consumer credits.
German insurance companies (Solvency II investors) have certain transparency requirements due to the prudent person principle under Solvency II. Investors usually require look-through information on the basis of a standardised tripartite reporting template. Moreover, Solvency II investors are subject to capital requirements, which are determined by risks in connection with investments, among other factors. Unleveraged closed-end funds are privileged in that respect. Insurers allocating investments to their long-term equity investments may enjoy even lower capital requirements; requirements on the side of the investing insurers are about to be relaxed based on an amendment of the Solvency II Directive as part of the Solvency II Review 2020.
Fund managers wishing to attract commitments by banks also have to accommodate the increasing transparency requirements under the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) – eg, in order to avoid investing banks having to fully back their investments with regulatory own funds (funds that institutions must have to absorb losses and comply with EU legislation). Irrespectively of such requirement, banks are facing higher risk weights allocable to their equity investments from 100–150% up to 250% for non-speculative equity investments during a transitional period starting in 2026 and ending in 2030.
ESG concerns are on the agenda of an increasing number of investors. Some institutional investors are already subject to statutory ESG obligations – eg, pension funds have to consider ESG aspects in connection with their business organisation and risk management, and are obliged to be transparent with regard to their handling of ESG factors. Solvency II investors have to consider sustainability aspects as part of the prudent person principle.
BaFin is responsible for regulating funds and fund managers.
In Germany, the management of investment funds is regulated by the KAGB, which implements the AIFMD and the UCITS Directive. The law requires that the manager is fully licensed or registered with BaFin under the KAGB. If a fund is internally managed, then the fund itself needs a licence or registration.
For details on investment limitations and other rules applicable to alternative funds, see 2.4 Operational Requirements.
There is, in general, no registration or regulation requirement for non-local service providers such as administrators, custodians and director services providers. However, when a German manager outsources portfolio or risk management, the delegate must be authorised or registered in their home country. In addition, any delegate domiciled outside of the EU must appoint a domestic authorised agent to whom notifications and service of process can be effected by the respective German authority.
An outsourcing delegate who provides services falling under the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) will be subject to a licence requirement under the German Banking Act (KWG) or the recently introduced German Securities Institutions Act (WpIG) if they actively solicited the relationship with the manager (as opposed to reverse solicitation). Acting as a tied agent for such services is also possible.
If German regulatory law requires a depositary for a German AIF, the depositary – or at least a branch of the depositary – must be domiciled in Germany.
EU Fund Managers
EU fund managers are allowed to perform fund management services under the AIFMD passport regime with regard to German Special AIFs. They may also use the AIFMD passport to provide other services and ancillary services (such as MiFID investment advice or discretionary individual portfolio management).
Non-EU Managers
Non-EU managers are currently not allowed to perform fund management services in Germany. This might change in the future with regard to AIFMs in those countries for which the passporting regime under the AIFMD for third-country managers will eventually become effective.
Outside of providing fund management services (eg, managed account solutions), non-EU managers may provide certain regulated services in Germany, such as investment advice or discretionary individual portfolio management. This requires either that the services are in the scope of an existing relationship with the German manager or that the relationship is established at the initiative of the German client (reverse solicitation). As an alternative, such service providers may apply to BaFin for an exemption from the German licence requirements (which is a lengthy process).
The registration procedure for a sub-threshold manager is comparatively simple and takes about one month. A full licensing procedure varies between four and 10 months, or even more. However, sub-threshold managers should prepare early for the full licensing procedure if passing the threshold is foreseeable because draft law which is likely to be adopted will provide for exclusion periods after which the application for a full licence will be deemed withdrawn if an applicant fails to fully answer requests for further information of BaFin. For the details on registered and fully licensed managers, see 2.1.2 Common Process for Setting Up Investment Funds.
A stricter regulation of pre-marketing activities and of the content of marketing materials has applied since the harmonised European regime for pre-marketing of alternative investment funds came into force in August 2021 (Directive (EU) 2019/1160 and the related Regulation (EU) 2019/1156). The European marketing regime provided by the EU Directive only applies to marketing activities by, or on behalf of, EU managers.
The German Implementation Act, however, extends the EU pre-marketing rules to non-EU managers. The commencement of pre-marketing of an AIF in Germany by a German or non-German manager (except for “registered-only” managers) needs to be notified to BaFin directly or through the respective regulator of an EU manager, and any subscription by German investors within 18 months following the commencement of pre-marketing will require adherence to the formal marketing notification and, thus, precludes reverse solicitation.
Germany understands marketing activities to be any direct or indirect offering or placement of units or shares in an investment fund. Reverse solicitation is currently not regarded as marketing, but its scope is further limited due to the pre-marketing regime.
Marketing materials must be in line with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) guidelines on the fair and not misleading standard of the content of marketing materials. These guidelines mirror the rather strict rules under the MiFID regime.
For placement activities in Germany by EU “registered-only” or non-EU managers, the BaFin FAQs maintain the position that placement by a manager, in particular, takes place with regard to a fund if:
Such FAQs also stipulate that reverse solicitation – ie, the approach of a manager by a German investor on its own initiative – will be permissible even on the basis of general advertisement activities of such manager if unrelated to particular funds.
AIFs can basically be marketed to retail and non-retail investors. However, alternative funds that are closed-end Special AIFs can only be marketed to professional and semi-professional investors. The EuVECA regime and the European long-term investment funds (ELTIF) regime apply to the marketing of EuVECA funds and ELTIF funds in the EU and in the EEA.
The marketing of alternative funds requires an authorisation by BaFin or at least a European marketing passport under the AIFMD, except for marketing by German sub-threshold managers.
Depending on the type of investment fund and whether or not retail investors are targeted, the notification process and the materials to be presented to BaFin vary.
To the extent an EU-AIFM has notified the marketing of an AIF in Germany to its local regulator, BaFin generally only reviews whether the notification and materials provided by such local regulator are complete, and marketing may already commence when such local regulator has informed the EU-AIFM of the submission to BaFin.
As explained in 2.1.4 Disclosure Requirements, there are annual reporting requirements for managers of retail funds and managers of non-retail funds. There are also semi-annual reporting requirements for contractual funds and AG with variable capital. The reports need to be published.
As explained in 2.3.1 Regulatory Regime, Germany recognises the concept of Special AIFs, which are AIFs whose interests or shares may only be acquired according to the fund documents by professional investors within the meaning of the AIFMD or by semi-professional investors. Special AIFs themselves are either subject to a lighter regulatory regime than retail funds (in the case of fully licensed managers) or are not subject to a regulatory regime at all (in the case of a German sub-threshold manager, except for debt funds).
In the authors’ experience, BaFin is generally co-operative and open to discussions. Expected timeframes can sometimes be an issue, particularly where BaFin is requested to answer questions on new issues.
BaFin regularly takes enforcement actions, with enforcement usually being a proportionate, step-by-step approach. Often, BaFin just issues a request for explanations as a warning and takes further actions only if the answers are not satisfactory.
The investment-type restrictions for regulated general special funds translate only into assets that can be valued at fair value and risk diversification. In practice, regulated special funds are often set up under a specific fund category (eg, special funds with fixed investment guidelines). Accordingly, for these funds, investment-type restrictions apply based on the chosen fund category and individualised investment guidelines (eg, real estate focus or debt fund).
Borrowing restrictions depend on the chosen fund category. For instance, special funds with fixed investment guidelines allow short-term borrowing of up to 30% of their net asset value and, for real estate, up to 60% of the real estate value. For German debt funds, the borrowing restrictions introduced by AIFMD II apply for AIFs of fully licensed managers, but existing requirements for registered managers are expected to be lifted in early 2026.
If the fund manager is fully licensed, they must appoint a depositary or special private equity custodian for each of the funds (as required by the AIFMD).
The valuation and pricing of the fund’s assets must be in line with the AIFMD requirements – ie, fair value.
The operational requirements of a fully licensed manager are in line with the AIFMD. In addition, fund managers must adhere to rules that apply to all market participants, such as the EU-based rules on insider dealing and market abuse, transparency, money laundering and short selling. Special internal rules apply to the manager (“manager-internal rules”) regarding debt funds.
Sub-threshold managers are only subject to a light-touch regulatory regime. Accordingly, no operational requirements apply, in principle, from a regulatory perspective (except with regards to debt funds).
Accessibility to Borrowing for Funds
Funds that are eligible for non-trading treatment from a tax perspective (see also 2.6 Tax Regime) are generally neither permitted to raise debt at fund level nor to provide guarantees or other forms of collateral for the indebtedness of portfolio companies. As an exception, tax authorities have accepted that funds can enter into a capital call facility subject to certain restrictions, and the number of funds making use of this concession has increased, as has the number of financial institutions offering capital call facilities to German funds. Leverage is not permitted for tax reasons and is restricted for regulatory reasons.
Restrictions on Borrowings
The criteria for non-trading treatment from a tax perspective do not allow borrowings at fund level. As an exception, short-term borrowings to bridge capital calls are accepted by tax authorities. While “short-term” has not been defined, borrowings cannot remain outstanding for more than 270 calendar days. Fund managers need to first issue the capital call and can thereafter draw down the amount under the capital call facility. The amount so borrowed is then repaid out of the capital contributions. In addition, borrowing restrictions introduced by AIFMD II will apply for AIFs of fully licensed managers.
Lenders Taking Security
Under German law, the investors’ commitment to the capital of a fund is not an asset that can be pledged in favour of the capital call facility provider. As a consequence, capital call facility agreements entered into by German funds typically provide that payments of capital contributions shall be made to a bank account maintained with the facility provider that is pledged in its favour. In addition, the facility provider reserves the right to claim payment of capital contributions directly from investors when due, and to enforce the fund’s rights under the fund agreement in the event of default. Assets and investments held by the fund are typically not pledged as collateral.
Common Issues in Relation to Fund Finance
Common issues include the following:
Investors typically object to the requirement to provide financial information unless publicly accessible.
Because of the general restriction on providing guarantees and other forms of collateral for the indebtedness of portfolio companies, equity commitment letters are very often used as an alternative. They should not interfere with the general restrictions on providing guarantees if structured as an agreement between the fund and its portfolio company whereby the fund undertakes to provide additional capital in the event that the portfolio company is in payment default or in breach of financial covenants. Such undertaking, however, should not be pledged by the portfolio company in favour of its creditors, in order to avoid being treated as a guarantee of the fund. The portfolio company can undertake in the agreement with its creditors not to change, amend or waive the fund’s equity commitment letter other than with the consent of its creditors.
The tax regime applicable to fund structures depends on whether a fund is organised as a corporate entity or a partnership.
Funds Organised as Partnerships
The tax regime applicable to funds organised as partnerships is as follows.
Fund structures
Consistent with international standards, German funds are typically structured as partnerships that are eligible for non-trading treatment and avoid their investment activities constituting a trade or business attributable to a permanent establishment. The non-trading requirements for private equity and venture capital funds are set out in an administrative pronouncement and include the following:
However, the administrative pronouncement has been questioned by the courts, and the tax authorities of some federal states seemed to have changed their view on the administrative pronouncement and interpret some of the requirements in a more narrow manner. For this reason, and to avoid some of the restrictions associated with the requirements, certain fund managers tend to set up funds that are treated as trading partnerships.
As of 2024, management of private equity and venture capital funds by German managers is no longer subject to VAT in Germany.
Allocations and distributions to investors
Funds structured as partnerships are treated as transparent for German tax purposes, so taxable income allocated to the investors is subject to tax regardless of whether or not the fund made distributions. Non-resident investors of funds that are eligible for non-trading treatment are generally not subject to a German tax filing obligation in respect of their allocable share of the fund’s taxable profit while non-resident investors of a trading fund must file a tax return in Germany. To handle this, some investors interpose holding companies that are opaque for German tax purposes or use corporate (opaque) feeder structures.
Regardless of whether the fund is a trading or non-trading partnership, the fund files a partnership return showing the items of taxable income received by the fund partnership and each investor’s allocable share thereof. In case of a non-trading fund partnership, non-resident investors are included in the partnership return only for information purposes. They are subject to tax in their country of residence in accordance with their personal tax status. In case of a trading fund partnership the income of non-resident investors will be determined based on the partnership return. The income so determined is binding for the tax assessment procedure of the non-resident investors.
Distributions by the fund to investors are not subject to German withholding tax. Dividends received by the fund from German portfolio companies as well as payments by German portfolio companies on certain German-source profit-linked debt instruments (such as silent partnership interests, jouissance rights and profit-sharing loans) are subject to withholding tax at the rate of approximately 26.4% (including solidarity surcharge) at source. Generally, the withholding agent (German portfolio companies or a German issuer of a profit-linked debt instrument) is not permitted to apply a reduced rate of withholding (eg, under an applicable tax treaty). Non-German investors that are entitled to treaty benefits with respect to such items of income must file a refund application with the German federal tax office, which is awarded subject to the fulfilment of certain procedural requirements. However, in case of a trading fund partnership the German withholding tax can be credited against the German tax liability of a non-resident investor and an exceeding amount (if any) will be refunded upon tax assessment.
Carried-interest participants
The German fiscal authorities characterise carried-interest payments as a compensation for professional services, and carried-interest payments are not taxed in accordance with the rules applicable to the source from which such payments are derived. Carried-interest payments by private equity funds and venture capital funds that are eligible for non-trading treatment are eligible for a partial tax exemption of 40%, and the remaining 60% is subject to tax at the marginal income tax rate of the carried-interest participant.
According to German fiscal authorities, carried-interest payments by funds that are treated as trading are fully subject to tax at the marginal income tax rate of the carried-interest participant. According to a decision rendered by the German federal tax court in December 2018, carried-interest payments by funds that are treated as trading are subject to tax in accordance with the tax rules applicable to the source from which the carried-interest payments are derived. It is an open issue as to whether or not this favourable court decision will be generally applied by the German fiscal authorities.
In April 2024 the German federal tax court held that these principles also apply to non-trading fund partnerships. However, as there are specific provisions on requalification and partial exemption of carried-interest payments at the level of the carried-interest participant, this is only relevant at partnership level. This has an impact on investors because carried interest can no longer be treated as an expense at partnership level (which might be non-deductible in certain scenarios) but as (disproportional) allocation of income which reduces the income of the investors. Despite the decision of the German federal tax court, there is still no consistent application of the principles laid down in this decision.
Carried-interest payments are not subject to VAT.
Taxation of Investors of Domestic and International Partnership-Type Funds
The following description is limited to funds organised as partnerships.
Domestic funds eligible for non-trading treatment
Partnership-type funds are treated as transparent for German tax purposes. Therefore, taxable income allocated to the investors is subject to tax at its level and in accordance with its tax status, regardless of whether or not the fund made distributions.
Germany will decrease the corporate income tax rate which is currently 15% plus solidarity surcharge of 5.5% thereon (resulting in a cumulative rate of approximately 15.8%) by 1 percentage point per year commencing in 2028 to a rate of 10% (plus solidarity surcharge thereon resulting in a cumulative rate of 10.6%) by 2032.
Resident corporate investors
95% of a resident corporate investor’s allocable share of equity capital gains is exempt from tax; the remaining 5% and all other items of income (interest and dividends) are subject to German corporate income tax and trade tax. The 95% exemption does not apply to life and healthcare insurance companies.
Non-resident corporate investors
A non-resident corporate investor’s allocable share of German equity capital gains is exempt from German tax. Dividends received from German portfolio companies and payments on certain profit-linked debt instruments by German issuers are subject to German withholding tax at the rate of approximately 26.4%. Tax treaty-protected investors may file an application with the German federal tax office for a refund of German withholding tax under the applicable tax treaty. Income derived from non-German portfolio companies is not taxable in Germany for non-resident corporate investors.
Domestic funds eligible for trading treatment
Funds that are trading partnerships are treated as transparent for German income and corporation tax purposes as well. However, they are subject to German trade tax as and of themselves.
Resident corporate investors
The taxation of resident corporate investors in trading fund partnerships is, in principle, similar to the taxation of income from non-trading funds. However, corporate investors of a domestic trading fund partnership benefit from a trade tax deduction as the fund partnership pays trade tax itself. This does not apply to life and healthcare insurance companies which have other mechanisms to avoid a double trade tax burden.
Non-resident corporate investors
Generally, non-resident corporate investors of a domestic trading fund partnership are subject to the same tax consequences as resident corporate investors and they must file a German tax return. In particular, German withholding tax can be credited against the German tax liability of a non-resident investor and an exceeding amount (if any) will be refunded upon tax assessment.
Non-German funds
Regardless of the qualification of their investment activities, non-German funds are typically deemed to be trading from a German tax perspective due to their legal structure.
Resident corporate investors
The allocable share of a non-German (deemed) trading fund’s taxable profits is subject to German tax. 95% of equity capital gains is exempt from corporate income tax and 100% is exempt from trade tax. These exemptions do not apply to life and healthcare insurance companies. The full amount of interest and dividends is subject to corporate income tax, but trade tax is levied only on interest and on dividends where the fund holds less than 10% of the company paying the dividend. Due to changes in the applicable legislation and some court decisions, the better view should be that there should not be any German trade tax at all in case an investor holds less than 10% in a non-German (deemed) trading fund.
Non-resident corporate investors
The deemed trading status of non-German funds does not affect their taxation in Germany. Their allocable share of German equity capital gains is exempt from German tax. However, they may be required to file a German tax return where they have held 1% or more of the share capital of the German company, the shares of which were sold or disposed of (determined on a look-through basis) during the last five years prior to such sale or disposition. They are only subject to tax in Germany in respect of items of income derived from German sources that are subject to German withholding tax at a rate of approximately 26.4% – ie, German dividends and payments on certain profit-linked debt instruments by German issuers. Tax treaty-protected investors may apply to the German federal tax office for a refund under an applicable tax treaty.
Corporate-Type Funds
The taxation of corporate-type funds (including funds of a contractual type such as the German Sondervermögen and non-German fund vehicles that resemble a German Sondervermögen, including trusts) and their investors is governed by the German Investment Tax Act.
Fund level
A corporate-type fund is a taxpayer in and of itself. Regardless of whether its place of business management is located in or outside Germany, only certain items of German-source income are subject to tax at the level of the fund.
Investor level
Non-resident corporate investors
Distributions by corporate-type German or non-German funds to non-resident investors are not subject to (withholding) tax in Germany.
Resident corporate investors
Resident investors are subject to German tax on the following three items of income derived from a corporate-type fund:
These three items of income subject to tax at the level of resident investors are eligible for a partial tax exemption in order to mitigate double taxation at fund and investor level if the corporate-type fund qualifies as a so-called equity fund or mixed fund. An equity fund is a corporate-type fund whose binding investment guidelines provide that more than 50% of the total net assets is directly invested throughout the entire fiscal year in equity instruments issued by companies being subject to minimum taxation requirements. For a mixed fund, the relevant threshold for direct equity investments is at least 25%.
For equity funds, the partial tax exemptions for taxable resident corporate investors (other than life or healthcare insurance companies) amount to 80% for corporate income tax purposes and 40% for trade tax purposes. In respect of mixed funds, the partial tax exemptions amount to half of the exemptions applicable to equity funds.
Germany’s Tax Treaty Network and Its Impact on the Funds Industry
Germany’s tax treaty network is extensive and covers, among others, all member states of the EU and the OECD. German tax treaties generally follow the OECD Model Convention. German corporate-type funds should be eligible for protection by German tax treaties regardless of the fact that their tax bases only include certain items of German-source income. Because distributions by German corporate-type funds to non-resident investors are not taxable in Germany under German domestic tax law, non-resident investors need not rely on treaty benefits in this regard.
Funds organised as partnerships are transparent for income tax purposes. German investors benefit from Germany’s tax treaty network because the geographic focus of funds typically relates to tax treaty countries. Funds investing in Germany benefit from Germany’s tax treaty network because their fundraising very often relates to investors resident in tax treaty countries. However, virtually none of the German tax treaties provide any benefits for non-resident investors in case of income from trade or business that is attributable to a German permanent establishment. In case of trading treatment of a fund partnership from a German perspective this may give rise to mismatches in case the tax authorities of the country of residence of a non-resident investor take a contrary view.
FATCA and CRS Regimes in Germany
Germany has entered into a Model-1 intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the USA and has incorporated the reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) as modified by the IGA into German domestic law. Accordingly, German fund managers have to file information under FATCA with the German federal tax office, which exchanges such information with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As a consequence, German fund managers do not have a direct obligation towards the IRS regarding FATCA reporting and disclosure.
Germany has also incorporated the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) into domestic law. As a result, German fund managers have an obligation under German domestic law to file information under the CRS with the German federal tax office, which exchanges this information with the competent tax authorities of the participating countries of the CRS.
DAC 6
The tax treatment and tax structure of partnership-type funds is typically not subject to filing requirements under DAC 6 (EU Council Directive 2011/16 in relation to cross-border tax arrangements). In particular, the trading or non-trading status of a partnership-type fund should not give rise to filing obligations under DAC 6. Moreover, the German tax authorities have provided guidance that the PPM or a similar document that outlines the risks and benefits of an investment does not constitute standardised documentation within the meaning of Hallmark A 3 of Part II of Annex IV to DAC 6.
The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD)
As Germany, like most other countries, treats partnerships as being tax-transparent, an investment in a partnership-type fund should not give rise to hybrid mismatches. However, if an investor is residing in a country that treats partnerships as opaque, any income of a German partnership-type fund attributable to such investor is subject to German tax to the same extent as if such investor were resident in Germany.
Investments in funds of a contractual type, such as the German Sondervermögen or non-German fund vehicles that resemble a German Sondervermögen, may give rise to hybrid mismatches, particularly in situations where the home jurisdiction of a non-German fund of a contractual type treats this fund as tax-transparent while Germany treats such funds as opaque under the German Investment Tax Act.
Minimum Taxation
As an EU member state, Germany implemented Counsel Directive (EU) 2022/2523 on ensuring a global minimum level of taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union including a qualified domestic top-up tax. However, this should not have an impact on funds themselves as they are exempted from the scope of minimum taxation as ultimate parent entities. However, special rules may apply if a fund becomes part of an MNE (multinational enterprise) group subject to minimum taxation.
As a starting point, retail investors are neither professional nor semi-professional investors (see 2.3.1 Regulatory Regime).
Retail funds are typically set up as UCITS funds or as so-called Public AIFs (as opposed to Special AIFs). Legal vehicles are mostly contractual-type funds (Sondervermögen) for open-end structures, and investment limited partnerships for closed-end retail funds. Corporate structures are less common in the retail sector as they are more complicated.
The choice of the vehicle is, in principle, dependent on whether an open-end fund or a closed-end fund is desired.
Arrangements and Vehicles for Open-End Funds
For open-end funds, the contractual fund and the investment corporation with variable capital structures are available. They can have different classes of units or shares, and can also establish sub-funds (umbrella structure). For open-end funds, most fund managers prefer a contractual fund to a corporation as the setting up and operation are easier.
Vehicles for Closed-End Funds
For closed-end funds, the only available vehicles for retail funds are the investment corporation with fixed capital and the closed-end investment limited partnership. Managers can only set up a closed-end fund in the form of a contractual fund for non-retail investors.
Both vehicles can issue different classes of shares or interests and establish sub-funds (umbrella structure).
The contractual fund is established by the fund manager on a contractual basis with the investor. The contractual fund is a pool of assets separated by statute and contract from the (other) assets of the fund manager. The investment guidelines for contractual funds set out the details of the contractual relationship between the fund manager and the investors, particularly the applicable investment restrictions.
Investment corporations and investment limited partnerships are basically corporations and limited partnerships, with some modifications required by investment law. They are established in accordance with the applicable procedures for establishing corporations and partnerships (with some modifications because of investment law). In addition to the articles of incorporation or the limited partnership agreement (LPA), separate investment guidelines are necessary.
The investment guidelines and marketing of retail funds need BaFin approval. BaFin also has to approve the selection of the depositary for the respective retail fund. The approvals are usually obtained in parallel with each other.
Depending on the type of fund, the process can be rather short in the case of a standardised fund product, or it can be rather lengthy and expensive in the case of a bespoke alternative asset retail fund (in particular, a closed-end fund).
As detailed in 2.1.3 Limited Liability, investors admitted to investment funds in Germany benefit from limited liability.
An extensive disclosure document (prospectus) is required if an AIF is marketed to retail investors. The prospectus must contain the following minimum information, where applicable:
There are also specific minimum information requirements for the prospectus of closed-end Public AIFs.
In addition to the prospectus, so-called key investor information must also be provided. The key investor information was supplemented by the key information document (KID) in accordance with the European PRIIP (packaged retail and insurance-based investment products) Regulation.
For UCITS, Germany follows the disclosure rules of the UCITS Directive, and, since 2 August 2021, has required that the UCITS prospectus informs the investors about the “facilities” established for local investors under the EU Directive on cross-border distribution of investment funds (Directive (EU) 2019/1160).
As described in 2.1.4 Disclosure Requirements, there are annual reporting requirements for managers of retail funds and managers of non-retail funds. There are also semi-annual reporting requirements for contractual funds and AG with variable capital. The reports need to be published.
Retail funds can be subscribed to by retail investors as well as by professional and semi-professional investors.
For open-end funds, the contractual fund and the investment corporation with variable capital structures are available.
For closed-end funds, the only available vehicles for retail funds are the investment corporation with fixed capital and the closed-end investment limited partnership.
For details concerning operational requirements regarding retail funds, see 3.1.1 Fund Structures and 3.1.2 Common Process for Setting Up Investment Funds.
There are only a few restrictions for investors investing in retail funds – eg, German Solvency I investors may not invest in retail open-ended real estate investment funds.
The main law governing retail funds is the KAGB, which is based on the AIFMD and the UCITS Directive and which is supplemented by German-specific rules for retail funds. In addition, several lower-level ordinances apply (the Derivative Ordinance, the Organisational and Rules of Conduct Ordinance and the Mediation Ordinance).
This set of laws is supplemented by self-regulatory standards, mainly the Rules of Good Conduct issued by the German Investment Funds Association and the Association’s sample investment guidelines.
As described in 2.3.1 Regulatory Regime, a full fund management licence opens the door for a manager to market funds to retail investors.
See 2.3.2 Requirements for Non-Local Service Providers.
The management of a retail AIF is not permitted for non-local managers.
For UCITS, management by non-local UCITS managers is possible via the cross-border passport under the UCITS Directive.
The licensing procedure can take from six to 12 months, or sometimes longer.
The rules concerning pre-marketing only apply to AIFs, as noted in 2.3.5 Rules Concerning Pre-Marketing of Alternative Funds.
Retail funds can be marketed only by the following three categories of “marketers”.
If the retail fund is marketed by the fund manager itself, the fund manager must make the fund documents and the latest semi-annual and annual fund reports available to the prospective investor. In addition, certain ongoing publication requirements apply (such as the publication of fund documents and fund reports on the manager’s website).
For MiFID firms, Germany considers the prospective investor as the regulatory client of the MiFID firm. Accordingly, MiFID firms have to adhere to the MiFID II rules of good conduct towards the prospective investor (requiring items such as suitability or appropriateness checks). This applies in a broadly similar fashion to the above-mentioned GewO firms. The MiFID application further means that marketing materials provided by the fund manager must comply with the MiFID II requirements on marketing materials (eg, with regard to past or simulated performance). As mentioned in 2.3.6 Rules Concerning Marketing of Alternative Funds, managers have been subject to similar requirements on the content of their marketing materials as MiFID firms.
Retail funds can be marketed to any investor in Germany (regardless of whether the investor is professional, semi-professional or retail).
The marketing of alternative funds or UCITS to retail investors requires either an authorisation by BaFin or, with respect to UCITS, a European marketing passport under the UCITS Directive.
There are annual and semi-annual reporting requirements for managers of retail funds. The reports need to be published. Furthermore, the redemption price must be published as well as any disclosures made in the home country of such manager.
In addition to that which was previously discussed in 2.3.10 Investor Protection Rules, civil law prospectus liability rules offer effective protection for retail investors. Basically, civil law prospectus rules impose a liability on the manager and initiator of the fund. The measuring stick is whether the prospectus is incomplete or misleading in aspects that are material for the investment decision of a typical investor.
As noted in 2.3.11 Approach of the Regulator, BaFin is generally co-operative and open to discussions.
Germany offers different types of retail funds – eg, UCITS, real estate funds, funds of hedge funds, closed-end funds and infrastructure funds. The fund types are based on the UCITS investment and borrowing restrictions as the default rules. The investment and borrowing restrictions are then modified to fit each fund type.
The KAGB contains a catalogue of assets in which a closed-end Public AIF may invest. The investment in other funds by a closed-end Public AIF is restricted (ie, the structuring of a fund of funds or feeder fund as a retail fund).
For a further overview, see 2.4 Operational Requirements.
The explanations given in 2.5 Fund Finance (regarding alternative investment funds) also apply to fund finance for retail funds.
German tax law does not provide for a specific tax regime applying to funds targeting retail investors. However, for taxation at investor level, different tax rules apply to institutional corporate investors and retail individual investors. The rules for retail individual investors are as follows.
Funds Organised as Partnerships
Domestic funds eligible for non-trading treatment
Resident retail individual investors
A resident retail individual investor’s allocable share of interest, dividends, capital gains relating to debt instruments and equity capital gains of shareholdings representing an indirect interest of less than 1% are subject to German income tax at a flat rate of approximately 26.4% (including solidarity surcharge) plus church tax, if applicable. Equity capital gains of shareholdings representing an indirect interest of 1% or more are subject to German income tax levied at the marginal tax rate, but 40% of such capital gains are exempt from income tax.
Non-resident retail individual investors
A non-resident retail individual investor’s allocable share of interest (other than profit-linked), dividends from non-German portfolio companies, capital gains relating to debt instruments and equity capital gains aside from shareholdings in German portfolio companies representing an indirect interest of less than 1% are not subject to German income tax.
Equity capital gains of shareholdings in German portfolio companies representing an indirect interest of 1% or more are subject to German income tax at the marginal tax rate, but 40% is exempt from income tax. Tax will be levied by way of assessment, based upon a German tax return to be filed by the non-resident retail individual investor. Such German tax-paying obligation does not apply to non-resident retail individual investors who are entitled to tax treaty benefits.
A non-resident retail individual investor’s allocable share of dividends from German portfolio companies is subject to German withholding tax at the rate of approximately 26.4%, and investors who are entitled to tax treaty benefits can file an application with the German federal tax office for a refund of the excess of the German withholding tax over the amount permitted under the applicable tax treaty.
Domestic funds eligible for trading treatment
Resident retail individual investors
Generally, a resident retail individual investor’s allocable share of income from a domestic trading fund partnership is subject to its personal income tax rate plus solidarity surcharge thereon. However, 40% of dividends and capital gains of shareholdings are exempt from tax (so-called partial income taxation). While a trading fund partnership is subject to trade tax at its own level (see 2.6 Tax Regime) there is no additional trade tax at the level of resident retail individual investors. Rather, resident retail individual investors are entitled to a tax credit of their allocable share of the trade tax paid by the partnership. However, this mitigates but does not eliminate the trade tax burden.
Non-resident retail individual investors
In case of a domestic trading fund partnership, the taxation of a non-resident retail individual investor is identical to the taxation of a resident retail investor. Non-resident retail individual investors must file a German tax return. Treaty benefits are not available to non-resident individual investors of a domestic trading fund partnership.
Non-German funds
Resident retail individual investors
As set forth in 2.6 Tax Regime, non-German funds are typically trading from a German tax perspective. Accordingly, a resident retail individual investor’s allocable share of a non-German fund’s taxable profits is subject to German income tax as follows: 60% of equity capital gains and dividends, and the full amount of interest is subject to German income tax at the marginal tax rate.
Non-resident retail individual investors
While non-German funds are typically trading from a German tax perspective, they typically do not operate a German permanent establishment to which their income would be attributable. Accordingly, a non-resident retail individual investor’s allocable share of the taxable profits of a non-German fund is subject to German tax only on German-source items of income, in accordance with the rules explained above for German funds that are eligible for non-trading treatment.
Corporate-Type Funds
Non-resident retail individual investors
Income derived from German or non-German corporate-type funds (including funds of a contractual type such as the German Sondervermögen and non-German fund vehicles that resemble a German Sondervermögen) is not subject to tax in Germany.
Resident retail individual investors
The three items of income described in 2.6 Tax Regime and derived by them from a German or non-German corporate-type fund are subject to German income tax at a flat rate of approximately 26.4% (including solidarity surcharge) plus church tax, if applicable. The partial tax exemptions for which they may be eligible amount to 30% in respect of equity funds and 15% in respect of mixed funds. Resident retail individual investors are not subject to trade tax.
Germany is constantly implementing any EU directives and modernising its rules, by a number of amendments to the KAGB. Recent changes have already been discussed throughout this chapter, where relevant. Following AIFMD II, the required changes to the KAGB are already in the legislative process and are expected to just mirror the revised AIFMD. In addition, BaFin reviews and updates its administrative pronouncements and FAQs on a regular basis. The German government has launched legislative initiatives intending to, inter alia, improve the tax treatment of investments by certain investment funds in Germany, and provide relief from German taxation of shareholders of passive foreign investment companies below certain thresholds. Moreover, domestic pension fund regulation was amended to expand options to invest in infrastructure and certain assets with a higher risk profile. The measures are in line with the German government’s intention to channel private capital into investments in infrastructure, renewable energies, and innovation. This also includes efforts to attract private funds under the roof of a “Germany Fund”. It remains to be seen whether and to what extent this will also affect German investment funds and investor regulation as well as fund taxation.
Potsdamer Platz 5
10785 Berlin
Germany
+49 3025 3530
+49 3025 3530
ber@pplaw.com www.pplaw.com
Regulatory
In 2026, the German and European landscape for alternative investments is driven by both evolving market dynamics and regulatory developments. Germany’s government has still not passed the government bill (Regierungsentwurf) for a Fund Risk Limitation Act (Fondsrisikobegrenzungsgesetz, or FoRG) (“FoRG Government Bill”), which mainly implements AIFMD II in Germany – most parts of which need to be implemented by mid-April 2026. Besides AIFMD II implementation, the FoRG introduces further changes to (German) fund regulation.
Another important point, albeit in the future, is the Market Integration Package (MIP), published by the EU Commission (“Commission”) on 4 December 2025. The MIP is central to the Commission’s Savings and Investments Union (SIU) strategy, which aims to create an integrated and connected EU-wide capital market. Amongst other aspects, the MIP proposes changes to AIFMD, the UCITS Directive and the Cross-Border Distribution of Funds Regulation (CBDF).
Almost two years after the application of the revised Regulation for European Long-Term Investment Funds (ELTIFs), ELTIFs aim to attract retail investors to invest into private equity (PE) and venture capital (VC).
Furthermore, secondary private markets keep emerging and growing, in terms of transactions led by both general partners (GPs) and limited partners (LPs).
AIFMD II and more – are subthreshold AIFMs the winners?
The FoRG Government Bill was mainly welcomed by market participants. Other than the ministerial draft (Referententwurf) (“FoRG Draft”), it provides clarity in some important aspects, while simultaneously reducing gold-plating. Subthreshold AIFMs in particular can breathe a sigh of relief.
Following its main focus on recognising the right of an AIFM to originate loans for and on behalf of AIFs it manages (“Debt Funds”), AIFMD II harmonises loan origination rules for AIFMs across the EU. The key rules include credit risk policies, limiting exposure to a single borrower to 20%, and banning loans to the AIFM or related parties. Furthermore, “originate-to-distribute” strategies (where an AIF’s strategy is solely to grant loans to transfer them on) are prohibited, but transfers to parallel funds or co-investors are permitted.
AIFMs must retain at least 5% of the notional value of loans transferred to third parties, with retention periods tied to loan maturity.
In addition, Debt Funds face leverage limits based on exposure to net asset value, with exemptions for borrowings covered by investor commitments. AIFMD II underlines that Debt Funds generally need to be closed-ended AIFs, but open-ended AIF structures may also be allowed if their liquidity management fits a loan-originating strategy.
Whilst the FoRG Draft made no differentiation between full-scope AIFMs and subthreshold AIFMs, the FoRG Government Bill no longer requires subthreshold AIFMs to comply with the aforementioned increased compliance requirements. The legislator argues that loan-originating activities by subthreshold AIFMs do not bear a systemic risk since they are only permitted to manage funds up to total Assets under Management of EUR500 million without leverage at AIF level, or EUR100 with leverage at AIF level (“AuM Limits”). The legislator does not deem greater investor protection to be necessary, as AIFs managed by subthreshold AIFMs may only be marketed to professional and/or semi-professional investors, but not to retail investors. Lastly, the legislator concludes that other EU member states do not impose similar organisational requirements on subthreshold AIFMs. Hence, German subthreshold AIFMs having to comply with these requirements could cause competitive disadvantages for them compared to subthreshold AIFMs from other EU member states.
However, five years after the FoRG comes into force, there will be a review to assess how the market segment of Debt Funds has developed and whether regulatory measures are required.
The FoRG Draft proposed what could have become subthreshold AIFMs’ nightmare: under current German law, the AuM Limits are calculated based on amortised acquisition costs. This means, in particular, that fair market values of the AIFs’ assets are irrelevant for the calculation of the AuM Limits. The FoRG Draft proposed to base the calculation of the AuM Limits on fair market values. In the VC market especially, such change would have endangered subthreshold AIFMs’ ability to reach the AuM Limits quickly and unpredictably, causing a transition from the low-regulated subthreshold regime to the full applicability of German fund regulation – an unmanageable scenario for many subthreshold AIFMs in the market. Following a hard push-back from the fund industry, this proposed change was removed from the FoRG Government Bill.
The MIP – a whole new (fund) world?
On 4 December 2025, the Commission unveiled its ambitious legislative package in the form of the MIP, marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of EU capital markets. The MIP is part of the broader SIU and promises to fundamentally reshape how AIFMs and UCITS management companies (“Fund Managers”) operate across borders within the EU.
The MIP comprises three legislative proposals that would, amongst others, amend the UCITS Directive, AIFMD and CBDF. The MIP aims to force the regulatory patchwork amongst EU capital markets by removing gold-plating and national discretions.
For Fund Managers, the MIP brings tangible operational benefits.
Processing times for cross-border fund management (management passporting) shall be dramatically reduced, with home member states required to forward information to host member states within just one month if providing services under the freedom to provide services, and within 15 days if they establish a branch in the host member state. The MIP proposes a gold-plating stopper, in that host member states would not be allowed to impose additional requirements for cross-border management, creating a truly harmonised framework.
Another important proposal is the simplification of cross-border marketing (product passporting) and pre-marketing. ESMA will develop a data platform (“ESMA Platform”) as a centralised hub for all national competent authorities (NCAs) regarding their role in cross-border marketing notifications and de-notifications for funds. Host NCAs would be able to directly access the ESMA Platform to receive documentation of funds marketed in their territory.
The ESMA Platform would also play an important role in the simplification of marketing notifications and de-notifications: fund managers would be able to indicate their intention to market funds in other member states and submit marketing documents when applying for a marketing authorisation in their home member state. The home NCA of the Fund Manager would transmit that information to the ESMA Platform – and marketing could commence from that date. Changes to the initial marketing notification as well as de-notifications will likewise be centrally managed via the ESMA Platform.
The MIP further proposes to introduce an EU depositary passport, allowing Fund Managers to appoint a depositary – in the form of an authorised credit institution or MiFID investment firm with passporting rights – located anywhere within the EU. This flexibility could fundamentally alter how Fund Managers structure their operations and select service providers.
A welcomed development for large groups is the proposal that intra-EU group outsourcing arrangements will no longer be treated as third-party outsourcing. Where a Fund Manager relies on other EU authorised entities (Fund Managers, credit institutions or MiFID investment firms) within its group, the arrangement would not be deemed outsourcing. However, NCAs would still have to be informed about such arrangement. Furthermore, core outsourcing rules would remain in place: the Fund Manager would remain liable and regulatorily responsible vis-à-vis its NCA, and the level of outsourcing would not be allowed to cause the Fund Manager to become a “letter-box entity”.
ELTIF 2.0 – private markets for everyone?
More and more Fund Managers are launching semi-liquid ELTIFs featuring monthly subscriptions and quarterly redemptions, investing across VC, PE, private debt and other illiquid assets.
Originally introduced in 2015, the ELTIF regime underwent a significant overhaul in 2024 by means of a revised regulation and new technical regulatory standards (“ELTIF 2.0”). In a nutshell, ELTIF 2.0 introduced the following significant changes:
The products encompass evergreen structures and multiple strategies, including co-investments, direct investments and fund-of-funds approaches, with other large sponsors such as BlackRock, Schroders, KKR, EQT and Partners Group expanding their ELTIF offerings.
ELTIF 2.0 effectively functions as the retail passport for AIFs since ELTIFs can be passported throughout the EU – with ELTIF 2.0 being the only regulatory framework applicable. This means that national rules in other member states (for example, prohibition or onerous requirements for retail AIFs) are irrelevant for ELTIFs. In fact, this means that retail investors can, for example, subscribe for VC, PE, private debt or infrastructure AIFs (structured as ELTIFs), investing only EUR1.
However, democratisation brings responsibilities: ELTIF Fund Managers must ensure that distributors and (retail) investors understand the ELTIFs’ mechanisms, their limitations (lock-up periods, complex valuation, etc) and fees (which are often much higher than, for example, ETF products). Platforms and advisers require training and standardised messaging on illiquidity and fees to ensure suitable client outcomes.
Therefore, while the opportunity is substantial (private markets have historically delivered attractive returns and diversification benefits), success depends on Fund Managers resisting the temptation to over-promise liquidity, maintaining conservative redemption policies and investing heavily in investor education. Regulators are expected to scrutinise early ELTIF 2.0 performance closely; any mis-selling scandals could derail this promising development.
SFDR 2.0: from disclosure chaos to categorical clarity
The revised Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (“SFDR 2.0”) was one of the most anticipated legislative documents in 2025.
On 20 November 2025, the Commission published a proposal for the SFDR, laying the groundwork for fundamental changes to the way that financial market participants based in or marketing products in the EU, including Fund Managers, disclose and report sustainability-related matters to investors.
Contrary to an earlier leaked copy of SFDR 2.0, the Commission does not currently propose an opt-out from SFDR 2.0 for funds or other financial products marketed exclusively to professional investors.
The core amendments follow long-standing and widely acknowledged issues with the SFDR, including that the existing framework results in disclosures that are too long and complex, making it difficult for investors to understand and compare the environmental or social characteristics of financial products. In addition, despite being intended to be a disclosure framework, it has effectively been used as a labelling system, causing confusion and increasing the risk of greenwashing and mis-selling.
SFDR 2.0 shifts away from a disclosure-based system to a product categorisation system. It introduces three new product categories, each of which are broadly subject to two key criteria:
The categories are Transition Products (Article 7), ESG Basics Products (Article 8) and Sustainable Products (Article 9), accompanied by Combination Products (Article 9a) and Non Categorised Products (Article 6a). Each category provides for specific objectives, thresholds and exclusions.
As pushed by the industry, SFDR 2.0 further recognises impact investing by introducing financial products that qualify as Transition Products or Sustainable Products and that have as their objective “the generation of a pre-defined, positive and measurable social or environmental impact” (impact add-on). This is not a category of its own; however, such products would be able to use the term “impact” in their name (while others cannot).
Financial products using the impact add-on must include the following additional disclosures (and thus have the required infrastructure in place):
In a positive move for Fund Managers investing in private assets, the proposal includes a phase-in period, with the 70% threshold needing to be met within a disclosed period.
For funds that are Non Categorised Products, Fund Managers will be able to include in the fund’s pre-contractual disclosures information on whether and how it considers sustainability factors beyond the consideration of sustainability risks.
Only products complying with the category criteria will be allowed to make sustainability-related claims in their names and marketing documents. Essentially, this picks up “Article 6 products” under the current SFDR by embedding naming/marketing restrictions on sustainability terminology for products not meeting category rules – following a similar approach as SFDR 2.0 takes for the impact add-on, just in the opposite direction.
As such, there are strict limitations in relation to sustainability-related information, to ensure that investors are not misled. In addition, the sustainability-related information should not be a central element of the pre-contractual disclosures, and should be neutral and secondary to the presentation of the fund’s characteristics.
Any sustainability-related claims made in marketing communications must be clear, fair, not misleading and consistent with the sustainability features of the fund.
A notable reduction in the extent of product-level disclosures is evident from SFDR 2.0. The aim is to give providers more clarity and certainty on how to design and present the sustainability characteristics or objectives of their products, making them more relevant and comparable for investors.
Managers of both Transition Products and Sustainable Products will, however, need to identify and disclose principal adverse impacts (PAIs) of their investments on sustainability factors and explain any mitigating action that they have taken. While the Commission would have the power to specify indicators for this purpose in a delegated act, such indicators would be for “voluntary use”. This would appear to indicate that Fund Managers could decide to use different indicators for these purposes.
Under SFDR 2.0, Fund Managers would no longer have to publish and maintain information about how they consider PAIs of investment decisions on sustainability factors.
Likewise, Fund Manager disclosures regarding transparency of their own remuneration policies in relation to the integration of sustainability risks would no longer be required, but sustainability risk disclosures would still be needed.
Lastly, SFDR 2.0 reduces the scope of the regime, with portfolio managers and financial advisers excluded. However, portfolio managers to whom management has been delegated from an in-scope fund are likely to be affected, as they will be contractually mandated to follow the rules.
SFDR 2.0 must go through the EU’s legislative process, which could lead to further changes. It will then come into force 18 months after publication in the Official Journal, so it could be expected to come into force at the end of 2027 (at the earliest) or in 2028.
Secondary transactions: PE’s liquidity evolution
The PE secondary market has undergone a dramatic transformation from specialist niche to mainstream asset allocation tool. H1 2025 secondary transaction volume reached USD102.23 billion, with a projected volume of USD176 billion for full-year 2025. This represents accelerating momentum building from 2024’s USD162 billion record.
These numbers are based on the solid demand for liquidity from LPs and continued growth in GP-led deals. Furthermore, the general increase of private market asset classes – such as infrastructure, private debt and VC – led to greater secondary deal flow.
Secondaries may take place via investors either directly trading participations in private companies, or trading existing commitments in PE funds (“PE Funds”). In respect of the latter, there are two types of deals:
For illiquid asset classes like PE, secondaries are the perfect liquidity and active portfolio management tool.
Especially where PE Funds’ distributions have decreased, LPs are lacking liquidity for new investments. Here, the opportunity to sell existing positions in PE Funds comes around just right. Furthermore, secondary markets offer a real-life valuation tool, allowing LPs to check what the market would pay for their interest in a PE Fund.
From a GP’s perspective, secondaries allow the retention of top-performing assets in a PE Fund (or its successor) while making LPs happy by providing them with an exit option.
Looking forward, paired with the increase of private asset classes and the transformation of secondaries from a specialised liquidity mechanism to a standard capital allocation tool, secondary transaction volume is expected to continue expanding. This development may fundamentally reshape how PE Fund Managers structure portfolio company exit strategies and investor distributions.
Tax
Federal Fiscal Court ruling on the retroactive applicability of Section 6e of the German Income Tax Act
In 2019, the so-called fund establishment costs (which are not directly deductible but must be capitalised) were introduced in law through Section 6e of the German Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz, or EStG). This has since led to disputes with the tax authorities about the scope of application. On 15 November 2024, the Federal Ministry of Finance published a draft stating its interpretation, and aiming to clarify the application of Section 6e of the EStG. However, there are still several uncertainties that could lead to potential conflicts with the tax authorities.
In a ruling dated 15 July 2025 (IX R 13/24), the German Federal Fiscal Court decided on the retroactive applicability of Section 6e of the EStG. For background: when the provision of Section 6e was introduced in 2019, it was intended to put in writing the official opinion of the German tax authorities, and to apply also for any prior open/unaudited tax years. In the particular case in issue, it was ruled that the retroactive application of Section 6e was lawful, as comparable established and long-standing case law and uniform legal practice already existed prior to the introduction of the provision. Nevertheless, as the ruling concerned the specific case of a real estate development company, it must be assessed in each individual case whether this ruling allows conclusions to also be drawn for PE/VC funds for pre-2019 periods. For these types of funds, whether such established practice already existed may be questioned.
Ruling on the double assessment of real estate transfer tax in the event of a separation of signing and closing
The Federal Fiscal Court recently issued a decision in a preliminary proceeding (Federal Fiscal Court of 9 July 2025, II B 13/25 (AdV)) on real estate transfer tax (RETT) in share deals with a signing/closing split. Such decision is particularly relevant for fund structures using German property-owning special purpose vehicles.
In the case, all shares in a GmbH holding German real estate were sold under a notarised share purchase agreement (signing). The transfer of the shares was subject to full payment of the purchase price (closing) a few days later. The tax office assessed RETT twice: once for the conclusion of the share purchase agreement (signing) and once for the shareholder change becoming effective (closing). The target GmbH applied for suspension of enforcement only with respect to the closing assessment. The Federal Fiscal Court rejected this and confirmed that the RETT assessment at closing is, in principle, lawful. The court emphasised that a full change of the shareholder base of a property-owning corporation, whereby at least 90% of the shares pass to new shareholders within ten years, triggers RETT as soon as the condition for the transfer is met (in this case, payment of the purchase price). In essence, in a double assessment scenario, the closing assessment is therefore the “hard” assessment; at best, the signing assessment can be removed if specific conditions are met.
This decision sits alongside an earlier Federal Fiscal Court ruling in which the court expressed doubts as to whether the tax authorities may, in signing/closing constellations, generally levy RETT twice; that earlier case, however, concerned the permissibility and suspension of the additional signing assessment. In the present decision, the Federal Fiscal Court makes it clear that such doubts do not undermine the RETT charge at closing, which is intended by the legislator to have priority.
In practice, this has several consequences. Where RETT may be triggered at both signing and closing, proper RETT notifications are of high importance, and all relevant assessments should be appealed in time to preserve access to the (limited) statutory relief for signing cases. While the introduction of Section 1, para 4a of the German RETT Act in December 2024 is expected to diffuse some multiple attribution issues going forward, transactions before that date – including historic acquisitions sitting in fund portfolios – remain exposed to double taxation risks.
Developments regarding the treatment of carried interest
The taxation of carried interest constitutes an evergreen issue in discussions with German tax authorities. While the uncertainties regarding the treatment of carried interest for purely domestic German cases seem to be (slowly) coming to an end, uncertainties remain, particularly in cross-border situations.
In one such case, the Schleswig-Holstein Fiscal Court decided (ruling of 8 October 2024, 3 K 37/22) on how carried interest in connection with an asset-managing fund is to be treated according to the double taxation treaty between Germany and the USA (DTT-USA). A German resident received a carried interest through a carry-vehicle based in the USA. The question was whether carried interest is considered as business income according to Article 7 of the DTT-USA. In its ruling, the Fiscal Court pointed out that the income classification under national law has no impact on the qualification of income under the DTT-USA. The Fiscal Court ruled that carried interest is to be classified as income from asset management. Therefore, the carried interest is not to be considered as business income from the perspective of the double taxation treaty. Instead, it must be considered as capital income (Article 13, para 5 of the DTT-USA) or as other income (Article 21, para 1 of the DTT-USA). Consequently, the full right of taxation is granted to the country of residence of the carry-beneficiary, which leads to the carried interest being taxable for German residents.
The ruling has notable practical relevance for all German carry-beneficiaries who are also subject to taxation in other jurisdictions with their received carried interest. Those affected should carefully review their individual tax position, although it should be noted that the Fiscal Court has allowed an appeal to the Federal Fiscal Court, meaning that the final decision has yet to be determined.
Developments concerning investment funds according to the Investment Tax Act
In principle, all open-ended (mutual) investment funds and all closed-ended funds in the legal form of a corporation are subject to the Investment Tax Act (Investmentsteuergesetz, or InvStG). Relevant developments are outlined below.
Reduction of the German Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rate
On 19 July 2025, an amendment to the German Corporation Tax Act came into force, reducing the German CIT rate (currently 15%) by 1% per annum from 2028 to 2032, bringing it down to 10% (barring further legislative changes in the meantime). The amendment will also affect investment funds under the InvStG, which are subject to CIT, in principle, with certain tax exemptions. Although the reduction will not take effect until 2028, it could affect investment funds now – for example, in connection with their yield calculations.
Extension of the fund settlement period
The settlement period for investment funds under Section 17, para 1, sent 4 of the InvStG, within which distributions are deemed to be tax-free repayments of capital, is to be increased from five to ten calendar years. It has become obvious in practice that settlement periods can last more than five years, particularly in the case of real estate funds. Accordingly, the amendment is intended to ensure that there is no unjustified taxation, and that settlement can take place more comfortably while reducing unreasonable tax burdens.
Innere Kanalstrasse 15
D-50823 Cologne
Germany
+49 2215 1080
+49 221 5108 4197
tanja.aschenbeck@osborneclarke.com www.osborneclarke.com