Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 2 - 8 October 2017.
- Judgment of 13 September 2017 (2C_422/2016): Cantonal taxes 2013 (Ticino). A provision which leads to the fact that years can pass between the (re)construction of a property and the new valuation is contrary to Art. 14 (1) StHG, as it results in a systematic underestimation of the value. However, these requirements do not go so far that a set-off of the property tax value is to be carried out directly on the basis of this StHG provision already during the conversion of a property. In the absence of a legal basis for offsetting, this must be omitted.
- Judgment of 21 September 2017 (2C_745/2017): State and municipal tax of the Canton of Zurich and direct federal tax, tax period 2014; in addition to the cost of the subscription, the complainant also brought the flat-rate deduction for the use of the bicycle (CHF 700.00) to the deduction (accumulation of deductions); the local municipal tax office offset the flat-rate bicycle deduction on the grounds that Article 5 of the Ordinance of 10 December 2009 on the Internal Revenue Code of the Canton of Zurich states The Court of Appeal of the Canton of Zurich, in its judgment of 13 February 1993 on the deduction of professional expenses for employed persons (BKV), is to be understood as an alternative and rules out cumulation (an objection raised to this was rejected by the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich); the Tax Appeal Court of Zurich upheld the appeal lodged by the complainant; the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich appealed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal; the starting point for the present case is Article 26(1)(b) of the Tax Code. a DBG, according to which the necessary costs for "journeys between home and place of work" can be claimed; the law does not stipulate that the journey to work must be "artrein" (E. 2.4.1); in practice, which is characterised by ever longer career paths, a "system break" or "split" is increasingly likely to occur, in that several means of transport are used in succession to reach the destination; this is a reality that the law of regulations does not want to and cannot close itself off, especially since there is no legal basis for this anyway; such a restriction of the freedom of action of the taxpayer would in any case require a legal basis (E. 2.4.2); the Federal Supreme Court further recognises that in the present case the taxpayer is managing his or her professional journey in a way that is both economic and ecological, because by avoiding the bus (and using the bicycle) he or she is helping to ensure that public transport does not have to be further developed during rush hours (E. 2.5.4).
