Abstract
The GmbH & Co. KG is the most common ‘hybrid’ type of company in Austria. It consists of a limited partnership (KG) owning the company assets and a private company limited by shares (GmbH) participating as the KG’s (usually only) general partner. Typically, the shareholders of the GmbH and the limited partners of the KG are identical, in most cases also holding shares in the same proportion. Contrary to most other forms of business organisation, the GmbH & Co. KG is not a legislative product but has arisen out of practical needs. The main purpose of setting up a GmbH & Co. KG is to combine fiscal advantages of partnerships (i. e., netting the company’s profits and losses against the shareholders’ other income) with limited liability. Although this hybrid was recognised very early by the courts, the discussion about its legitimacy is still alive. As soon as the tax advantages disappear in comparison to other legal forms, the attractiveness of the GmbH & Co. decreases. A legislator should hesitate to establish a hybrid only to facilitate fiscal benefits; he must prove and secure advantages by civil and corporate law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
W. Kastner and G. Stoll, Die GmbH & Co. KG im Handels-, Gewerbe- und Steuerrecht (Vienna, Orac 1977) p. 1.
S. Kalss and G. Eckert, Zentrale Fragen des GmbH-Rechts (Vienna, Linde 2004) p. 293 et seq.
Until 1 January 2007, Austrian law distinguished between a KG operating a full commercial business and a KEG where this is not the case. In legal terms, these two types of company are organised practically identically. As of 1 January 2007, this distinction has been abolished, leaving only the KG. See W. Dehn, ‘Das UGB: Die wichtigsten Neuerungen’, ecolex (2006) p. 274.
§ 161 Abs. 1 HGB.
§ 164 Abs. 1 HGB.
W. Dorait and H.G. Ruppe, Grundriß des österreichischen Steuerrechts I (Vienna, Manz 1998) p. 183.
Kastner and Stoll, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 362.
L.C.B. Gower and P. Davies, Principles of Modern Company Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2003) p. 12.
W. Kastner, Grundriß des österreichischen Gesellschaftsrechts, 3rd edn. (Vienna, Manz 1979) p. 30.
Ibid., at p. 244.
§§ 18, 19 GmbHG.
There must be at least one director: § 16 Abs. 1 GmbHG.
§ 15 Abs. 1 GmbHG.
The requirement of a compulsory advisory board depends primarily on the company’s size.
§ 29 Abs. 1 GmbHG.
§ 110 ArbVG.
§ 39 GmbHG.
Kastner, op. cit. n. 9, at p. 278.
§ 1 KStG; W. Dorait, Steuerrecht 2006, 7th edn. (Vienna, Manz 2006) p. 85.
§ 22 KStG; Dorait, op. cit. n. 19, at p. 93.
§ 33 EstG.
§ 27 EstG, § 10 KStG.
Kastner, op. cit. n. 9, at p. 123.
Ibid., at p. 107.
H. Sudhoff, J. Reichert and A. Breitfeld, GmbH & Co. KG, 6th edn. (Munich, Beck Juristischer Verlag 2005) p. 219.
Ibid., at p. 42.
Kastner and Stoll, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 31.
§ 22 KStG.
Concept of ‘group taxation’: § 9 KStG; Dorait, op. cit. n. 19, at p. 90 et seq.
Kastner, op. cit. n. 9, at p. 122.
Kastner and Stoll, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 30.
Cf., § 29 Abs. 1 Z 4 GmbHG.
§ 6 Abs. 1 GmbHG.
Kastner, op. cit. n. 9, at p. 115.
Cf., Dorait and Ruppe, op. cit. n. 6, at p. 184.
Kastner and Stoll, op. cit. n. 1, at p. 114.
Gower and Davies, op. cit. n. 8, at p. 229.
Cf., M. Silberberger and O. Buhl, Die britische Limited in Üsterreich und Deutschland (Vienna, Lexis Nexis 2004) pp. 1,3 et seq.
Ibid., at p. 14.
Ibid., at p. 42 et seq.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalss, S. The Austrian GmbH & Co. KG . Eur Bus Org Law Rev 8, 93–101 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752907000936
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752907000936