On 7 August 2025, the German Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) published the draft bill for the Ninth Act Amending the Tax Advisory Act (StBerG). Hidden in what appears to be a minor amendment to § 55a StBerG lies a significant tightening of the ownership restrictions: going forward, only those audit firms and book audit firms that themselves meet all recognition requirements under the StBerG would be permitted to hold shares in tax advisory companies. This would effectively rule out a structure that has until now been common practice, whereby financial investors regularly participate indirectly in German tax advisory firms via EU/EEA audit firms.
Treatment of European Legal Systems
The draft assumes that the independence of tax advisors outside Germany is not sufficiently safeguarded. “This assumption runs counter to the European spirit and ignores reality: many member states also impose ownership restrictions, albeit less strictly – and even in countries like Switzerland, where full ownership is permitted, the independence of professionals is not in question”, says Dr Martin Jäger, Associate at Taylor Wessing.
Succession and Digitalisation Pressures
At the same time, the draft overlooks structural challenges facing the profession: the generational shift is intensifying, with many Baby Boomer tax advisors retiring, while younger professionals increasingly prefer the security of employment over entrepreneurial risk. In parallel, investment pressure is mounting due to digital platforms, automation and AI-driven tools.
“A rigid ownership ban on non-professionals risks blocking access to urgently needed capital – and in doing so, could hinder the necessary modernisation of the profession”, warns Anne-Kathrin Hoppe, Salary Partner at Taylor Wessing.
Questionable Unequal Treatment
While tax advisors, auditors and lawyers are subject to strict ownership restrictions, German medical practices may be acquired outright by financial investors. Why the economic interests of clients should warrant greater protection than the health of patients remains unclear.
Corporate Governance Instead of Blanket Ownership Bans
Safeguarding the independence of professionals is a legitimate goal, but it should not be achieved solely through rigid ownership restrictions. Profession-specific corporate governance structures, ensuring that tax advisors remain free from instructions by non-professionals in their professional practice, could secure independence and quality of advice just as effectively – without excluding essential capital and meaningful cooperation.
Conclusion
The stated aim of the draft bill is to secure the independence of the profession. In practice, however, it would eliminate the currently common participation structures of financial investors via EU/EEA audit firms, hinder international cooperation, cut off urgently needed capital inflows for digitalisation and succession, and at the same time raise significant questions under European and constitutional law.
