HGB §§342–342p
Income Tax Information Report
Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht
The HGB provisions requiring certain companies to prepare and disclose an income tax information report, implementing EU country-by-country reporting requirements.
1
Conceptual Framework Linkage
THE NEWEST PROVISION COVERED IN THIS ENTIRE PROJECT: inserted into HGB in June 2023, first applicable to fiscal years beginning after 21 June 2024 – meaning genuine first-time applications only became live very recently. This subsection also caused a real renumbering ripple: inserting §§342–342p pushed whatever OLDER content previously sat at those numbers (the private accounting standard-setting body) to different paragraph numbers, which this series will verify freshly when it gets there.
The same anti-opacity theme as the extractive-industries poster, generalised to multinational tax
The previous poster documented payment transparency for a narrow, high-corruption-risk sector. §§342–342p generalise the SAME underlying policy instinct – public, country-by-country transparency as a check on opacity – to ALL large multinational groups, specifically targeting where they report income taxes relative to where they genuinely earn their profits. This implements EU Directive 2021/2101, itself a response to years of public debate about multinational tax planning following the OECD's own BEPS project.
HOW §§342–342P MAP TO GERMAN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES
Anti-avoidance, made explicit – the specific circumvention-prevention rule flagged in Section 2 continues the SAME anti-avoidance theme this series has documented repeatedly (§264a, §335b, §341t(6)) Extraterritorial anchoring through local presence – §§342d–342f ensure a German subsidiary or branch cannot serve as an escape hatch for a genuinely global group, echoing the SAME "form/location doesn't create a loophole" logic seen throughout this series
The confirmed Titel structure
Titel/clusterContent
1stScope; definitions (§§342–342a)
Preparation obligationFive obligated-company categories (§§342b–342f)
3rdCompanies to include; content and form (§§342g–342l)
DisclosureUnternehmensregister and website publication (§§342m–342n)
Sanctions§§342o–342p
2
Scope – the €750 Million Threshold, and a CRR-Institution Exemption
A genuinely high bar, matching the existing private CbCR threshold
This Subsection applies where consolidated group revenue exceeds €750,000,000 in TWO CONSECUTIVE fiscal years – deliberately matching the SAME threshold already used for the PRIVATE (non-public) country-by-country report German groups already submit to tax authorities under §138a of the Abgabenordnung (AO, the German Fiscal Code), implementing the OECD's own BEPS Action 13 framework. CRR credit institutions are EXEMPT, since they are already subject to a comparable EU banking-supervision public CbCR requirement. §342b(4) also supplies a genuine anti-avoidance rule addressing arrangements structured EXCLUSIVELY to circumvent this Subsection's own reporting obligations – the same anti-avoidance theme flagged in Section 1.
3
§342a – Key Definitions
Establishing the vocabulary this Subsection depends on
§342a defines core terms including "Berichtszeitraum" (the reporting period – the fiscal year for which the Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht must be prepared), alongside further definitions establishing the technical vocabulary the remainder of this Subsection relies on.
4
§342b–342f – Five Distinct Categories of Obligated Company
Five genuinely different routes into the same reporting obligation
§342b – Unverbundene Unternehmen mit Sitz im Inland: domestic standalone (non-group) companies exceeding the threshold on their own §342c – Oberste Mutterunternehmen mit Sitz im Inland: domestic ULTIMATE parent companies heading a qualifying group §342d – Tochterunternehmen mit Sitz im Inland von obersten Mutterunternehmen mit Sitz in einem Drittstaat: domestic SUBSIDIARIES of a qualifying group whose ultimate parent sits OUTSIDE the EU/EEA §342e – Inländische Zweigniederlassungen unverbundener Unternehmen mit Sitz in einem Drittstaat: domestic BRANCHES of a standalone (non-group) third-country company §342f – Inländische Zweigniederlassungen verbundener Unternehmen mit Sitz in einem Drittstaat: domestic BRANCHES of a third-country company that is itself part of a qualifying group
5
Worked Example – Identifying Which Category a Company Falls Into
Two genuinely different German companies, two genuinely different routes into the same regime
Example 1: A German ultimate parent versus a German subsidiary of a US group
Company A is a German AG heading its OWN multinational group, with consolidated revenue of €1.2 billion. Company B is a German GmbH, wholly owned by a US-headquartered parent whose OWN global consolidated group revenue is €900 million, with the GmbH itself having no separate German sub-group of its own.
Company A falls under §342c – a domestic ULTIMATE parent – and prepares its own group Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht directly. Company B falls under §342d – a domestic SUBSIDIARY of a THIRD-COUNTRY ultimate parent – meaning the reporting obligation reaches Company B specifically BECAUSE its US parent's group exceeds the threshold, even though Company B itself is merely a subsidiary with no group of its own.
6
The Extraterritorial Reach – Why a Third-Country Parent Can't Simply Escape
Anchoring the obligation to local presence, regardless of where the ultimate parent sits
§§342d–342f collectively ensure that a genuinely global, qualifying group CANNOT escape this transparency regime entirely simply because its ultimate parent sits outside the EU/EEA – the obligation instead attaches to the group's own GERMAN subsidiary or branch presence, requiring THAT entity to prepare and disclose the report (using data the ultimate parent must supply, or, failing that, using its own best available information) if the ultimate parent itself doesn't do so. This is a genuinely significant extraterritorial-reach mechanism, anchoring EU transparency obligations to LOCAL presence rather than depending on cooperation from an entity entirely outside EU jurisdiction.
7
Worked Example – a US Group's German Subsidiary Triggering the Obligation
The obligation lands on whoever the EU can actually reach
Example 2: A non-cooperative US parent, and its German subsidiary's own fallback duty
Continuing Example 1: Company B's US parent, despite exceeding the €750m threshold, declines to prepare or provide any Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht data to its German subsidiary.
Company B's OWN legal representatives remain obligated under §342d to prepare and disclose the report – using whatever information they can reasonably obtain, and explicitly noting where the parent failed to provide required data – ensuring the US parent's own non-cooperation does NOT simply exempt the German subsidiary from the transparency regime entirely.
8
§§342g–342l – Content, Form, and the Geographic Breakdown Structure
Granular for the EU and known non-cooperative jurisdictions; aggregated elsewhere
§342h(3) specifies the precise required data points – including revenue, profit or loss before tax, income tax accrued and paid, accumulated earnings, number of employees, and tangible assets other than cash. Country-specific information must be given SEPARATELY for EVERY EU/EEA member state, and for EVERY non-cooperative tax jurisdiction (per the EU's own official list) where the group operates – but information for OTHER third countries (ordinary, non-blacklisted jurisdictions) may be AGGREGATED together rather than broken out individually. This is a genuinely POLICY-DRIVEN structural choice: the EU prioritises transparency specifically WITHIN its own member states and toward known problem jurisdictions, rather than demanding the same granularity for every country worldwide.
9
Worked Example – Structuring the Geographic Breakdown
Full granularity for the EU and blacklisted jurisdictions; a single combined line for everything else
Example 3: A group operating across the EU, a non-cooperative jurisdiction, and several ordinary third countries
A qualifying group operates in Germany, France, and Poland (all EU member states); in a jurisdiction appearing on the EU's own non-cooperative tax jurisdictions list; and in Brazil, Japan, and South Africa (ordinary, non-blacklisted third countries).
The Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht shows SEPARATE lines for Germany, France, Poland, and the non-cooperative jurisdiction – each with its own full country-specific breakdown – while Brazil, Japan, and South Africa may be COMBINED into a single "other jurisdictions" aggregate line, without needing to be individually broken out.
10
The §138a AO Data-Reuse Election – a Genuine Compliance Simplification
Avoiding two fundamentally different data-compilation exercises for two similar regimes
§342h supplies a genuinely practical ELECTION: companies already required to submit the PRIVATE, non-public country-by-country report to the Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Federal Central Tax Office) under §138a AO – the German implementation of the OECD's own BEPS Action 13 framework – may REUSE that SAME underlying data for the new PUBLIC Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht, rather than compiling an entirely separate data set for what is, in substance, a very similar (if legally distinct) reporting exercise. Flagged by professional commentary as genuinely important in practice, given the real compliance-cost savings this reuse option offers.
11
§342l – Mandatory EU Formblatt and Machine-Readable Format
A prescribed, EU-wide standard template – not a company's own free-form disclosure
§342l(1) requires MANDATORY use of the specific template the European Commission itself prescribed and published (in December 2024) – genuinely echoing §330's own Formblatt-delegation concept established much earlier in this series, though here the template originates at EU level rather than through German domestic regulation. The report must ALSO be prepared as a MACHINE-READABLE data set, reflecting the EU's own broader digital-transparency ambitions for this reporting regime, enabling automated cross-jurisdictional comparison and analysis rather than merely human-readable disclosure.
12
§342m – Disclosure via the Unternehmensregister, Within 12 Months
The same 12-month deadline, and the same disclosure platform, established earlier in this series
§342m requires the Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht to be disclosed to the Unternehmensregister – the SAME central disclosure platform established in the earlier Disclosure poster following the 2022 DiRUG reform – within TWELVE MONTHS after the end of the fiscal year, matching the GENERAL ordinary corporate disclosure deadline this series has documented repeatedly. Where an ultimate parent fails to provide the required report, or provides one that doesn't meet the legal requirements, the local company's own representatives must instead submit alternative required information in its place.
13
§342n – the Dual Publication Requirement, and Its Exception
Central register AND the company's own website – unless one already makes the other redundant
§342n ADDITIONALLY requires publication on the COMPANY's OWN website – a genuinely distinctive DUAL-publication requirement, beyond the general disclosure obligation this series has otherwise documented as centering purely on the Unternehmensregister. This separate website-publication duty FALLS AWAY, however, where the report is already freely, permanently, and gratuitously accessible via the Unternehmensregister's OWN website – a sensible avoid-duplication mechanism, ensuring companies aren't required to maintain two genuinely redundant public copies where one already achieves full public accessibility.
14
§317(3b) – Integration With the Ordinary Statutory Audit
A genuinely notable extension of the existing audit framework, rather than a standalone check
§317(3b) – amending the SAME audit-scope provision established in the earlier Audit poster – requires the auditor to specifically confirm, as part of the ORDINARY statutory audit, WHETHER a disclosure obligation under this new Subsection existed for the company at all, and WHETHER the company actually complied with it. Rather than creating an entirely separate, standalone compliance-verification mechanism, this integrates the new transparency regime directly into the SAME audit apparatus this series has already documented in detail – a genuinely efficient legislative choice, reusing existing infrastructure rather than duplicating it.
15
§342o–342p – Sanctions
The same administrative enforcement architecture, applied to a new document type
§§342o–342p supply administrative fine (Bußgeld) sanctions for non-compliance with this Subsection's own obligations, broadly paralleling the general §334/§335 enforcement architecture already established for ordinary corporate disclosure – continuing this series' now-familiar pattern of extending the SAME enforcement seriousness to each genuinely new transparency mechanism it documents.
16
Ripple Effects – §271(2) and §325a Amended by the Same Law
A reminder that a single reform can touch provisions covered many posters earlier
The SAME 2023 implementing law that inserted §§342–342p also ADJUSTED §271(2)'s own "Verbund" (affiliation) definition, established very early in this series' individual-accounts posters, and EXPANDED §325a's own foreign-branch disclosure obligation, established in the earlier Disclosure poster – a useful reminder that a single, targeted piece of legislation can genuinely ripple across provisions this series covered many sessions apart, and worth bearing in mind that any of the earlier posters' own content could, in principle, have been touched by subsequent reforms not yet reflected there.
17
Critical Judgments & Practical Difficulties
Where judgement matters most
SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS
Determining, for a German subsidiary of a non-cooperative third-country parent, what constitutes its own genuinely "best available information" fallback disclosure
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
Coordinating the mandatory EU Formblatt's own machine-readable format requirements with the company's existing financial reporting systems, particularly for first-time preparers
18
Relationship to IFRS
A regulatory transparency mechanism sitting outside IFRS entirely, applying regardless of accounting framework
Precisely as with the extractive-industries payment reporting covered in the previous poster, IFRS itself has no equivalent – this is a REGULATORY transparency requirement implementing a specific EU Directive, entirely independent of whether a company's own Jahresabschluss/Konzernabschluss follows HGB or, via §315e, EU-IFRS. This obligation applies on the basis of GROUP REVENUE and geographic footprint, not on the basis of which accounting standard governs the underlying financial statements.
19
Statement Mapping
Where every §§342–342p event lands
Event / obligationDocument affectedNotes
Report preparationErtragsteuerinformationsberichtA standalone document, entirely separate from the Jahresabschluss
Audit scope extension (§317(3b))PrüfungsberichtConfirms whether the obligation existed and was met
20
Related Provisions – Cross-Reference Map
How §§342–342p connect across HGB Book 3
ProvisionNature of the connection
§330The Formblatt-delegation concept §342l's own EU-level template mirrors, at a different jurisdictional level
§317(3b), §325, §325aExisting audit and disclosure infrastructure this new regime deliberately reuses and extends
§341q–341yThe conceptually related, narrower extractive-industries payment transparency regime covered in the previous poster
§264a, §335bThe recurring "form/location doesn't create a loophole" anti-avoidance theme underlying §§342d–342f
21
Quick-Reference Glossary
Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht
Income tax information report – the public, country-by-country tax transparency document this Subsection requires.
Oberstes Mutterunternehmen
Ultimate parent undertaking – the top of a qualifying group's own ownership structure.
Nicht kooperatives Steuerhoheitsgebiet
Non-cooperative tax jurisdiction – per the EU's own official list, requiring individual country-level breakdown even outside the EU/EEA.
§138a AO
The German Fiscal Code provision governing the pre-existing PRIVATE country-by-country report, whose data may be reused for the public report.
Unternehmensregister
Company register – the central disclosure platform this report is filed to, alongside the general corporate disclosure regime.
BEPS Action 13
The OECD framework underlying the pre-existing private CbCR regime this public regime deliberately parallels.
Key
Ertragsteuerinformationsbericht Public tax information report
Prüfungsbericht Audit report