Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week from 1 to 7 May 2017.
- Judgment of 13 February 2017 (2C_189/2016, 2C_190/2016): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2004 (Geneva); waiver of claims constitutes taxable income within the meaning of Art. 16 and 18 DBG; no deduction of undocumented losses; appeal dismissed
- Judgment of 5 April 2017 (2C_1107/2016): Criminal proceedings for tax evasion (Obwalden); no deadline standstill in proceedings under the DBG; lack of conclusiveness of a telephone note from a lawyer who claims to have obtained information from the President of the Administrative Court that the judicial vacations provided for under cantonal procedural law also apply to direct federal tax; complaint dismissed.
- Judgment of 7 April 2017 (2C_128/2016, 2C_130/2016): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2007 - 2009 (St. Gallen); dual residence under treaty law; assessment of the centre of vital interests within the meaning of Article 4, para. 2 letter a DBA Switzerland-Germany; appeal dismissed.
- Judgment of 13 April 2017 (2C_784/2016, 2C_785/2016): Direct federal tax and cantonal taxes 2008 (Schwyz); flat-rate deduction for property maintenance (Art. 32 para. 4 DBG); allocation of various properties to business or private assets; intention to achieve a long-term return on assets; allocation to private assets; flat-rate deduction possible; appeal upheld
- Judgment of 19 April 2017 (2C_358/2017): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2011 and 2013 (Zurich); refusal to grant free administration of justice; setting of a deadline for the payment of an advance on costs; the appeal will not be upheld
- Judgment of 20 April 2017 (2C_814/2015, 2C_815/2015): Direct federal tax (2005 - 2007) and state and municipal taxes 2006 - 2007; capital tax 2005 - 2009 (Geneva); question of consideration and method of determining hidden capital; principles of profit determination, in the present case third-party comparison, in the context of hidden capital ( E. 7.2); the determination of hidden capital was correctly carried out by the previous instance (cf. E. 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7); dismissal of the appeal insofar as it is upheld.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
