Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week from 30 October - 5 November 2017.
- Judgment of 26 October 2017 (2C_201/2016): Procedural law (principle of publicity and its exceptions) in administrative assistance proceedings (Switzerland - Spain); appeal by the FTA (appellant) against an interim decision of the Federal Administrative Court; the Federal Supreme Court has provided for a public hearing in the present appeal proceedings by way of an order of 6 October 2017; on 20 October 2017, the Federal Supreme Court issued a decision on the appeal of 6 October 2017. On 20 October 2017, the respondent requests the exclusion of the public; the Federal Supreme Court refers to the relevant case-law in BGE 133 I 106 and BGE 135 I 198; the respondent is a politically exposed person; the request regarding the exclusion of the public is partially granted in the sense of the considerations and, in addition, rejected.
- Judgment of 18 October 2017 (2C_803/2017): Connection fee; appeal against the judgment of the Cantonal Court of Vaud of 16 August 2017; the subject of the dispute was a tax surcharge (invoice of 27 May 2015) of the municipality of Dully; write-off of the case following withdrawal of the appeal.
- Judgment of 20 October 2017 (2C_492/2017): Heavy Vehicle Fee; unaccompanied combined transport; loading containers not reaching the required size for reimbursement; obligation to pay back; the lower instance applied the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, with which the latter had filled a gap in the SIA (concerning measurement procedures). According to the facts established by the lower court and not sufficiently challenged, the present situation is comparable to that in which the Federal Supreme Court had filled the gap in question. Accordingly, neither the principle of legality nor the principle of equal treatment was violated. According to the current legal situation (amendments which came into force on 1 January 2017), the necessary mass for a (partial) refund of the HVF would have been reached. In administrative proceedings, however, the lex mitior rule does not apply; rejection of the complaint (see also our article of 23 April 2017).
- Judgment of 16 October 2017 (2C_537/2016): Value Added Tax, 3rd Quarter 2011 to 4th Quarter 2011 The question of whether or not expenses increase the value of the property needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis; in the case at hand, the redesign of a shop window installation resembled mainly a renovation of the façade, even if the outer boundary of the ground floor was slightly shifted and a new usable area was created to a modest extent; an expenditure is to be qualified either in its entirety as a value-preserving expenditure or in its entirety as a value-enhancing expenditure; the new shop window installation was accordingly to be qualified as a value-preserving expenditure and was therefore inaccessible to a deposit tax; the phrase "as a rule" in the third sentence of the third paragraph of Article 3 of the Basic Law was not applicable.2.1 item [recte of the editorial: 3.1.2] of the VAT-Info 10 Change of use of January 2010 is not to be understood in such a way that all investment costs that can be capitalised according to the general principles of accounting are relevant for tax purposes for the building, but implies a provision that expressly allows exceptions; acceptance of the complaint.
- Non-occurrence decisions / inadmissible complaints:
- Judgment of 17 October 2017 2C_884/2017): Installation of a prepayment electricity meter; failure to pay the advance on costs; the complaint, which is obviously without substantive justification, is not upheld.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
