Under the current tax regime Germany grants a tax exemption only for domestic funds but not for foreign funds. The Fiscal Court Münster (20/04/2017,10 K 3059/14 K) ruled that this does not violate the EU freedoms because the situation of German funds is not comparable to that of foreign funds. In the case at hand a foreign real estate fund (a Luxembourg fonds commune de placement, or FCP) holds German real estate directly. The foreign fund claimed that it should be exempt from German tax on the rental income. It argued that because of the tax exemption granted to a German domestic fund, a Luxembourg fund should be granted the same treatment and thus receive the same tax exemption privilege.

The German Federal Tax Court decided whether the German CFC rules also apply to foreign companies located outside the European Union. Whereas the German CFC legislation, in the case of companies located within the European Union, provides for an exemption if the foreign company can prove "real economic activity", such an exemption is not granted to companies located outside the European Union. The German Federal Tax Court believes that this may be contrary to the principle of free movement of capital. The Court therefore puts this question to the European Court of Justice.

The Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Civil Court) decided on whether a fund manager may ask for an administration fee in addition to the management fee. As far as banks are concerned, this practice by and large has been found to be not in line with German law. The Court now ruled that the same is not true in a fund context. Under German investment law, a fund manager has a right to be reimbursed for reasonable expenses incurred in the best interest of the fund. This right exists side-by-side with the management fee to which a fund manager is entitled. However, the Court's decision makes it clear that reimbursement clauses are only for covering costs and not for providing an additional profit margin to the fund manager.