The goal of the proposals is to reduce bureaucracy. For businesses, this is more than just a technical detail: Given the intense pressure to compete and invest, the business community now needs clear, positive signals from policymakers. The tax omnibus bill can provide important momentum—provided it goes beyond a mere minimal compromise.

Simplification Is Long Overdue

International corporate taxation has become significantly more complex in recent years. EU requirements, OECD rules, and national exceptions all intertwine. As a result, tax obligations are becoming increasingly complex, and complying with them is growing more costly for companies.

A structural problem in EU tax law is the multiple tax burdens faced by large companies: Those subject to the OECD’s global minimum tax must simultaneously comply with other similar regulations, such as add-back taxation or DAC 6 reporting requirements. Often, similar information is requested multiple times, and different tax bases with identical objectives are calculated side by side. This does not increase transparency; rather, it ties up resources, increases the risk of double taxation, and places an excessive burden on companies. The European Commission is therefore right to exempt companies already covered by the complex scope of Pillar II from certain regulations. For all other companies, the administrative burden must be significantly reduced. The Tax Omnibus Act offers an opportunity to reduce overlaps and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements.

Regulations that have taken on a life of their own in practice are also being reviewed. The interest deduction limitation is one such example: Intended as an anti-abuse measure, it now often acts as a disincentive to investment. It applies even in clearly non-problematic cases and influences real financing decisions. External financing (for example, through a bank) is not susceptible to tax planning and should not be affected. The European Commission has also recognized this. However, it is crucial to adopt a practical approach that treats modern financing structures—such as cash pooling and the transfer of funds within a tax group—as harmless, at least in non-cross-border cases.

In addition, national gold-plating exacerbates the situation. A ZEW study from March 2026 shows that Germany—similar to France and Poland—implements EU tax requirements particularly strictly. This weakens competitiveness. Against this backdrop, the European Commission should carefully assess in the future which new rules are truly necessary, especially since member states often tighten them even further. In return, Germany should scale back its gold-plating.

Ambition Instead of Minimal Compromise

An ambitious tax omnibus should specifically target excessive regulations and reduce effects that hinder investment. Simplification is both possible and necessary: Numerous proposals from academia and the business community—such as those from the Federal Ministry of Finance’s Expert Commission on Simplified Corporate Taxation and our current two-page brief—demonstrate this.

Whether the EU takes this path now depends on the political will of the member states. Blocking the process under the unanimity rule would send the wrong signal. Reducing bureaucracy creates the necessary leeway for growth, investment, and entrepreneurial freedom of action. Following the agreement on the global minimum tax and the partial exemption for key countries, there is now once again a responsibility to critically review existing EU rules.

The business community therefore expects more than just cosmetic adjustments. A minimal compromise would perpetuate the problems. What is needed are genuine relief measures, reliable framework conditions, and tangible incentives for investment in Europe and in Germany. The tax omnibus bill offers this opportunity. Now it is crucial to seize it with determination.