With Section 6e Income Tax Act (EStG), the legislator has for the first time expressly regulated a long-disputed issue – the income tax classification of so-called fund establishment costs. The provision was based on earlier case law on contractual networks, which was intended to prevent abuse, and the so-called “Bauherrenerlasse” (building contractor decrees) of the time, most recently adopted in the 2003 fund decree.
1) Brief outline and history – up to the current BMF Circular dated 19 January 2026
The starting point was the contract network case law at the time and the fund decree of 2003. In classic public fund structures of the “grey capital market”, individual “fees” (design, distribution, construction management, etc.) were outsourced to separate contracts in order to generate high, immediately deductible expenses for investors at an early stage (“purchase price atomisation”). Key features were a uniform contract specified by the project provider and a passive investor side with no real influence.
The Federal Fiscal Court (IV R 33/15 of 26 April 2018) rejected the continued validity of this case law (inter alia with regard to Section 15b of the Income Tax Act). As so often, the legislature responded with a “non-application law” in the form of Section 6e of the Income Tax Act, also with regard to open old cases.
Section 6e EStG was introduced by the Act on Further Tax Promotion of Electric Mobility and Amendment of Other Tax Regulations of 12 December 2019. The core idea is that expenses incurred in connection with the establishment of certain closed-end funds during the investment phase should not be treated as immediately tax-deductible, but as acquisition costs of the investment objects – if (i) a pre-formulated contract exists and (ii) the investors have no significant influence.
Following the German Minstry of Finance (BMF) draft circular dated 15 November 2024, the FINAL BMF circular dated 19 January 2026 has now been published. Among other things, it stipulates that its principles are to be applied in all open cases to all closed-end funds in the legal form of a partnership, in this case commercial and asset management funds, which are regularly KAGB investment funds.
Of particular practical relevance is that the BMF specifies the very vague and open to interpretation criteria of Section 6e EStG from the perspective of the tax authorities:
2) Practical significance for PE funds (and why this is particularly problematic)
In practice, Section 6e EStG is increasingly being discussed not only in relation to traditional real estate or public funds, but also in the context of private equity/venture capital – in particular because of the question of whether typical PE/VC cost items (e.g. management fees, fund expenses, set-up costs) should be included as acquisition costs in the investment phase.
This is countered by a strong set of arguments: typical PE/VC funds are generally not “exemplary” in the sense of historical abuse constellations. They are aimed at professional/semi-professional investors, may be subject to regulatory oversight and, above all, the fund terms and conditions are often negotiated individually (LPA mark-ups, comments memos, side letters).
The central element of “pre-formulation” is already missing if at least one (anchor) investor has a structural influence on the essential fund terms – especially if the final fund documentation (including side letters) is the result of a negotiation process lasting several weeks or months.
This often turns the question of application in PE/VC into a question of evidence and documentation: anyone who can show that the “concept” was not unilaterally predetermined but negotiated has a strong argument against Section 6e EStG. Evidence of negotiations and the existence of side letters, among other things, can serve as indications here.
3) BFH ruling on retroactive effect
A supreme court ruling has now been issued on the politically and constitutionally sensitive issue of retroactive effect: the Federal Fiscal Court has ruled that the retroactive application of Section 6e EStG to financial years ending before18 December 2019 (Section 52 (14a) EStG) does not violate the constitutional prohibition of retroactive effect (BFH, ruling of 15 July 2025 – IX R 13/24).
4) Further doubts about “model design” in individual side letters
For PE/VC structures, the point of contention is often not the classification of individual cost items, but rather “one level before” that: Does Section 6e EStG apply at all?
Individual side letters in particular often contradict the image of a “contract pre-formulated by the project provider” because they typically reflect investor requirements (regulation, ESG, reporting, MFN, governance, removal mechanisms, etc.) and thus document active investor participation.
This also corresponds to the BMF criteria: significant influence requires not merely consent, but a real opportunity to change “essential parts of the concept” – and the administration also requires complete documentation of the implementation and deviations (correspondence, version comparisons, etc.).
In practice, this is precisely where clear side letter and negotiation documentation can become the decisive “case maker”.
Conclusion:
Section 6e of the German Income Tax Act (EStG) has been a key touchstone for closed-end funds since well before the BMF letter of 19 January 2026 – and is increasingly being taken into account in the PE/VC context as well. At the same time, contrary to the opinion of the tax authorities, there is much to suggest that typical PE/VC funds with genuine investor participation do not fit the historical pattern of abuse. The tax debate is thus shifting from the “cost catalogue” to questions of structure and evidence: pre-formulation vs. negotiation, passivity vs. influence, model character vs. market standard.
From a practical user perspective, it should be noted that Section 6e of the Income Tax Act (EStG) virtually “nullifies” the tax limitation on the deductibility of income-related expenses for capital assets (keyword: saver’s allowance) in the case of shares in asset-managing partnerships held by private investors. Private investors can rejoice, as expenses that are not actually deductible as income-related expenses for capital assets are now added to the acquisition costs of the investments and thus reduce the taxable capital gain on exit accordingly.
The situation is different for investors who hold their investments in business assets. In this case, particularly for corporations, the full deductibility under Section 8b of the Corporation Tax Act (KStG) is “reversed” with the inclusion of non-deductible expenses at a flat rate of only 5% of tax-free income. All acquisition costs capitalised in accordance with Section 6e EStG are thus lost for tax purposes under Section 8b KStG.
Last but not least, especially in this age of widespread calls for less bureaucracy, the comprehensive aspects addressed in the BMF letter do not contribute to resolving the remaining questions of doubt or to reducing the administrative burden (keywords: documentation requirements, collective items, done deals, broken deals, etc.) in practical implementation. Ultimately, the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) will make a legally binding decision on the interpretation of Section 6e EStG, and it would not be the first time that the opinion of the tax authorities has not prevailed.
In light of the further pending appeal proceedings (BFH IV R 6/24 and BFH IX-R 13/24), we recommend keeping relevant cases open by lodging an appeal and applying for a stay of proceedings. A never-ending story, indeed…
Download now:
BMF Circular 19.01.2026 §6e ITA Fund Establishment Cost.
The attached Circular Letter of the German Ministry of Finance is an AI-generated convenience translation. As is well known, artificial intelligence occasionally generates inaccurate results.
LM waives any liability for completeness or correctness of such translation.
In case of doubt please always refer to the German original version.
All contributions have been compiled to the best of our knowledge. However, we cannot accept any liability for their content.
