Entrepreneur Giulio Paolino has published a 152-day account of forming a business in Germany, saying he spent more than €9,600 while still lacking the VAT identification number needed to invoice international clients through his chosen structure. His chronology is a personal case study, not a measure of the typical German incorporation process.
Paolino began in late January and created PlentyLabs UG & Co. KG, a structure involving two legal entities. By late June, he calculated that legal, notary, court, tax and software bills exceeded €7,600. Another €2,000 in share capital remained locked in an account. The first entity had entered the commercial register, and tax questionnaires requesting standard VAT treatment and a VAT ID had been submitted.
The immediate blockage was the VAT ID, which he expected by post. Paolino said overseas clients required it to apply reverse-charge treatment. He could technically invoice German clients, but chose to wait because he expected invoices would need to be reissued after the identifier arrived. That distinction matters: the source describes an inability to invoice foreign clients cleanly and a decision to delay domestic bills, rather than a universal legal prohibition on issuing any invoice.
Part of the timeline involved securing approval for a company name. Lawyers advised that “Plenty,” “Plenty Group” and “Plenty Labs” might not satisfy German distinctiveness requirements because they consisted of generic English words. The eventual name, PlentyLabs, removed the space. This account reflects advice and correspondence in one registration, not a definitive ruling that every similar name would fail.
Paolino chose a KG partnership with a small UG as its general partner to combine pass-through treatment with limited liability. He rejected a sole proprietorship because it would expose him personally to claims. He also preferred a UG to a GmbH, whose stated capital requirement is €25,000; a UG can begin with less but must retain a quarter of annual profit until reserves reach that threshold. The source presents those considerations from the founder’s perspective and is not tax or legal guidance.
The essay contrasts Germany with Estonia and the United Kingdom, which Paolino says offer faster, cheaper online formation. He also says leaving Germany is not straightforward because the value of his first company could create a substantial exit-tax exposure on unrealized gains.
The report supports a concrete criticism of sequential administration: each professional and authority could bill during the setup while revenue collection lagged. Broader conclusions about German competitiveness require comparative data, but Paolino’s documented sequence shows how structure, naming, registration and tax identification can combine into a costly delay for one founder.
