Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 3 - 9 July 2017.

  • Judgment of 2 June 2017 (2C_68/2016): Inheritance tax (Geneva); application of cantonal law concerning the assessment and reference limitation period; no arbitrary application of law; the appeal is dismissed
  • Judgment of 14 June 2017 (2C_542/2017): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2015 (Berne); Non-occurrence; the appeal does not contain a legally valid statement of grounds and will be dismissed by simplified procedure.
  • Judgment of 14 June 2017 (2C_895/2016, 2C_896/2016): Direct federal tax and cantonal taxes 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Schwyz); income and wealth tax; purchase into the 2nd pillar; retroactive set-off due to lump-sum withdrawal within the three-year vesting period; repurchase after a divorce (Art. 79b para. 3 and 4 BVG/LPP); "After a divorce, the obliged spouse should be able to return to the same pension status as before the divorce after the pension benefits have been divided. When buying back after a divorce, it must therefore be possible to close the gap created by the division of the pension benefits. In order to make this equality possible, it seems necessary to understand the exception of Art. 79b para. 4 BVG in such a way that re-purchases after a divorce are to be excluded from the three-year blocking period, since otherwise, especially in the case of divorces shortly before retirement, a re-purchase with subsequent lump-sum withdrawal is made impossible". (E. 2.2.); no tax avoidance; the claimed deduction under Art. 33 para. 1 lit. d DBG is to be allowed; the appeal is upheld and the matter is referred back to the cantonal tax administration for reassessment.
  • Judgment of 19 June 2017 (2C_408/2016, 2C_409/2016): Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2009 (Valais); the direct postal delivery of an assessment ruling to Austria without a treaty basis violates Austria's territorial sovereignty, which is why there is a fundamental lack of opening. However, in this case it was the taxpayer who had requested direct postal delivery abroad. Against this background, if the taxpayer invokes a lack of opening, this is tantamount to venire contra factum proprium, which does not merit legal protection.
  • Judgment of 20 June 2017 (2C_548/2017): State and municipal taxes 2013 (Berne); tax remission; legal issues of fundamental importance; no adequate statement of reasons; the appeal will not be upheld
  • Judgment of 20 June 2017 (2C_550/2017): Late payment of the advance on costs for the court proceedings before the cantonal authority (Neuchâtel); the appeal proves to be manifestly unfounded and is dismissed under the simplified procedure
  • Judgment of 15 June 2017 (2C_485/2017): Direct Federal Tax 2011 (Aargau); cessation of self-employment as a farmer and sale of real estate; taxation of liquidation profit; the appeal proves to be unfounded and is dismissed.
  • Judgment of 15 June 2017 (2C_960/2016): Cantonal income tax (Vaud); refusal of deductions in connection with a share purchase agreement; no arbitrary assessment of evidence; the burden of proof for tax-reducing facts is borne by the taxpayer; the appeal is dismissed.
  • Judgment of 19 June 2017 (2C_487/2017): Direct Federal Tax (Revision) and State and Municipal Taxes 2012 (Zurich); assessment according to dutiful discretion; the appeal proves to be manifestly unfounded and is dismissed.
  • Judgment of 20 June 2017 (2C_1074/2016): Fees levied by the foundation supervisory authority; qualification as a causal levy; no sufficient legal basis; in the present case, there is a complete lack of anchoring of the levy in a formal law; the levying of the fee is based solely on a fee regulation of the supervisory board of the Bernese LOB and foundation supervisory authority (BBSA); the appeal is upheld and the ruling of the lower court is overturned.

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

‍

Tax topics covered in this post:
No items found.