IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/80-4-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Erbschaftsteuer und Erbschaftsteuerreform in Deutschland: eine Bestandsaufnahme

Author

Listed:
  • Henriette Houben
  • Ralf Maiterth

Abstract

The German Inheritance Tax Reform Act 2009 was caused by the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court since the valuation procedures were not in line with constitutional requirements. However, similar to the criticized former law the new valuation procedures result in tax values widely deviating from market values. As German tax law traditionally employs standardized valuation procedures, divergences in tax and market values are inevitable. Valuation results reflecting market values require assessorial expertise. However, this is costly and prone to disputes between tax payer and tax authorities. Furthermore, particularly market values for firms and individual real estate cannot be determined properly. The valuation of business assets and real estate remains the Achilles' heel of any wealth taxation. In addition to this basic shortcoming a vast or even entire tax exemption for firms was introduced in 2009. Empirical evidence demonstrates that family businesses are not threatened by the liquidity effect of taxation although this served as main argument in favor of this tax privilege. The tax exemption for firms rather conflicts the ability-to-pay-tax-principle as well as the redistribution objective since large properties often comprise business assets. Thus the inheritance tax should either be abolished or fundamentally reformed. An inheritance tax with a broad tax base and low tax rates, which is neutral to tax revenue, is in line with basic tax principles without endangering firms. Ausgangspunkt der Erbschaftsteuerreform 2009 war ein Beschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, wonach die Bewertung von Betriebs- und Grundvermögen im früheren Recht mit dem Gleichheitssatz nicht vereinbar war. Allerdings gelingt die Bewertung von Sachvermögen auch im neuen Erbschaftsteuerrecht nicht zufriedenstellend. Dies ist dem Gesetzgeber jedoch nur bedingt zuzuschreiben. Sofern, wie in Deutschland üblich, standardisierte Bewertungsverfahren eingesetzt werden, weichen die Steuerwerte immer mehr oder weniger stark von den Verkehrswerten ab. Eine marktnahe Bewertung erfordert gutachterliche Expertise, die jedoch teuer und aufgrund subjektiver Elemente streitanfällig ist. Zudem lassen sich Verkehrswerte gerade für Betriebsvermögen oder individuelles Grundvermögen oftmals überhaupt nicht zuverlässig ermitteln. Die Bewertung von Betriebs- und Grundvermögen bleibt die Achillesferse einer jeden Substanzsteuer. Neben diesen grundsätzlichen Mangel gesellt sich die 2009 eingeführte weitgehende beziehungsweise gänzliche Steuerfreistellung von Betriebsvermögen. Die Begründung hierfür, der steuerbedingte Liquiditätsentzug gefährde Unternehmen und damit Arbeitsplätze, ist empirisch nicht haltbar. Vielmehr widerspricht die Verschonung von Betriebsvermögen sowohl dem Prinzip der Besteuerung nach der wirtschaftlichen Leistungsfähigkeit als auch dem Umverteilungszweck der Erbschaftsteuer, da große Vermögen zunehmend aus Betriebsvermögen bestehen. Aus diesem Grunde bestehen aus unserer Sicht nur zwei Optionen: Entweder wird die Erbschaftsteuer abgeschafft oder aber grundlegend reformiert. Eine gleichmäßige Erbschaftsteuer mit niedrigen Steuersätzen, die Aufkommensneutralität gewährleistet, würde dagegen die Ziele der Erbschaftsteuer erreichen, ohne Unternehmen über Gebühr zu belasten.

Suggested Citation

  • Henriette Houben & Ralf Maiterth, 2011. "Erbschaftsteuer und Erbschaftsteuerreform in Deutschland: eine Bestandsaufnahme," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(4), pages 161-188.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:80-4-9
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.80.4.161
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.80.4.161
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.80.4.161?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bach, Stefan & Bartholmai, Bernd, 2002. "Perspektiven der Vermögensbesteuerung in Deutschland," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 82, number 82, July.
    2. Douglas Holtz-Eakin & John W. R. Phillips & Harvey S. Rosen, 2001. "Estate Taxes, Life Insurance, And Small Business," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(1), pages 52-63, February.
    3. Villalonga, Belen & Amit, Raphael, 2006. "How do family ownership, control and management affect firm value?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 385-417, May.
    4. Francisco Pérez-González, 2006. "Inherited Control and Firm Performance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1559-1588, December.
    5. Brunetti, Michael J., 2006. "The estate tax and the demise of the family business," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(10-11), pages 1975-1993, November.
    6. Morck, Randall & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1989. "Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 842-852, September.
    7. C. Lowell Harriss, 1949. "Federal Estate Taxes and Philanthropic Bequests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57, pages 337-337.
    8. Douglas Holtz-Eakin & Donald Marples, 2001. "Distortion Costs of Taxing Wealth Accumulation: Income Versus Estate Taxes," NBER Working Papers 8261, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Nick Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2006. "Management Practices, Work--L ife Balance, and Productivity: A Review of Some Recent Evidence," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(4), pages 457-482, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Beznoska & Tobias Hentze & Maximilian Stockhausen, 2020. "The inheritance and gift tax in Germany: Reform potentials for tax revenue, efficiency and distribution," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 44(3), pages 385-417.
    2. Brunner Johann K., 2014. "Die Erbschaftsteuer – Bestandteil eines optimalen Steuersystems?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 15(3), pages 199-218, October.
    3. Stefan Bach & Henriette Houben & Ralf Maiterth & Richard Ochmann, 2014. "Aufkommens- und Verteilungswirkungen von Reformalternativen für die Erbschaft- und Schenkungsteuer: Endbericht; Forschungsprojekt im Auftrag der Bundestagsfraktion Bündnis 90/Die Grünen," DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, volume 83, number pbk83, Enero-Abr.
    4. Kranzusch, Peter & Stamm, Isabell & Schneck, Stefan & Kay, Rosemarie, 2022. "Unternehmensveräußerungen: Verbreitung, Gewinne und Trends," Daten und Fakten 32, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Houben, Henriette & Maiterth, Ralf, 2009. "Inheritance tax-exempt transfer of German businesses: Imperative or unjustified subsidy? An empirical analysis," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 95, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    2. Wojciech Kopczuk, 2012. "Taxation of Intergenerational Transfers and Wealth," NBER Working Papers 18584, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Grossmann, Volker & Strulik, Holger, 2010. "Should continued family firms face lower taxes than other estates?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 87-101, February.
    4. Adams, Renée & Almeida, Heitor & Ferreira, Daniel, 2009. "Understanding the relationship between founder-CEOs and firm performance," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 136-150, January.
    5. Shim, Jungwook & Okamuro, Hiroyuki, 2011. "Does ownership matter in mergers? A comparative study of the causes and consequences of mergers by family and non-family firms," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 193-203, January.
    6. James R. Hines & Niklas Potrafke & Marina Riem & Christoph Schinke, 2019. "Inter vivos transfers of ownership in family firms," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(2), pages 225-256, April.
    7. Kopczuk, Wojciech, 2016. "U.S. capital gains and estate taxation: a status report and directions for a reform," CEPR Discussion Papers 11208, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Randall Morck, 2011. "Finance and Governance in Developing Economies," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 375-406, December.
    9. Lu, Yi & Tao, Zhigang, 2009. "Contract enforcement and family control of business: Evidence from China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 597-609, December.
    10. Cucculelli, Marco & Micucci, Giacinto, 2008. "Family succession and firm performance: Evidence from Italian family firms," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 17-31, February.
    11. Kanellos Toudas & Athanasios Bellas, 2014. "Corporate Governance and its Effect on Firm Value and Stock Returns of Listed Companies on the Athens Stock Exchange," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 58-80.
    12. Schmid, Thomas & Ampenberger, Markus & Kaserer, Christoph & Achleitner, Ann-Kristin, 2010. "Controlling shareholders and payout policy: do founding families have a special 'taste for dividends'?," CEFS Working Paper Series 2010-01, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).
    13. Li, Feng & Srinivasan, Suraj, 2011. "Corporate governance when founders are directors," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 454-469.
    14. Ampenberger, Markus & Schmid, Thomas & Achleitner, Ann-Kristin & Kaserer, Christoph, 2009. "Capital structure decisions in family firms: empirical evidence from a bank-based economy," CEFS Working Paper Series 2009-05, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).
    15. Isakov, Dušan & Weisskopf, Jean-Philippe, 2014. "Are founding families special blockholders? An investigation of controlling shareholder influence on firm performance," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Amore, Mario Daniele & Minichilli, Alessandro & Corbetta, Guido, 2011. "How do managerial successions shape corporate financial policies in family firms?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 1016-1027, September.
    17. Margit Schratzenstaller, 2023. "Behavioral Responses to Inheritance Taxation. A Review of the Empirical Literature," WIFO Working Papers 668, WIFO.
    18. Saito, Takuji, 2008. "Family firms and firm performance: Evidence from Japan," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 620-646, December.
    19. Dian Perwitasari & Doddy Setiawan & An Nurrahmawati & Isna Putri Rahmawati, 2022. "Firm Performance during COVID-19 Pandemic: Does Ownership Identity Matter? Evidence from Indonesia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, September.
    20. Morck, Randall & Deniz Yavuz, M. & Yeung, Bernard, 2011. "Banking system control, capital allocation, and economy performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 264-283, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Inheritance tax; inheritance tax reform; valuation pProcedures; uniform taxation; preferential taxation of firms; family businesses;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • H21 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Efficiency; Optimal Taxation
    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:80-4-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.