Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between March 25 - 31, 2024:
- Judgment of February 21, 2024 (9C_734/2023): Tax freezing (Solothurn); the dispute is whether A. missed the deadline for appealing against the freezing order. The freezing order dated May 26, 2023 was sent by the cantonal tax office by A Mail Plus and deposited in A's mailbox on Whit Saturday, May 27, 2023. The freezing order must be contested within 30 days in accordance with Art. 169 para. 3 DBG and § 184 para. 2 StG SO. The deadline began on Sunday, May 28, 2023, and ended accordingly on Monday, June 26, 2023. A.'s appeal, which was not lodged until June 29, 2023, therefore proves to be late. Dismissal of the appeal of A.
- Judgment of February 21, 2024 (9C_735/2023): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2011 (Solothurn); revision; The taxpayer should have taken reasonable care to clarify in the ordinary proceedings, but at the latest in the fall of 2021, whether his trustee had complied with the instructions given to him regarding the declaration of a participation in discretionary business assets, which he would have been able to do easily by reviewing the 2011 tax return and the documents submitted. Insofar as the appeal is therefore not already excluded in principle, the appeal request submitted only on January 9, 2023 proves to be manifestly late. The lower court therefore rightly protected the non-admission of the appeal.
- Judgments of March 4, 2024(9C_224/2023 and 9C_225/2023): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2015 (Ticino); sale-and-leaseback; the lower court did not allow a balance sheet adjustment to take into account depreciation in the amount of the leasing installment (without a pure interest component); the taxpayer is unable to substantiate the extent to which this should be contrary to federal law; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal insofar as it can be upheld.
- Judgment of March 05, 2024 (9C_237/2023): Cantonal and communal taxes and direct federal tax 2018 (Vaud); The dispute is whether the severance payment is a lump-sum payment by the employer, which is taxed on a privileged basis pursuant to Art. 17 para. 2 in conjunction with Art. 38 DBG. Art. 38 DBG is taxed on a privileged basis. Three conditions must be met cumulatively: (i) the taxpayer leaves the company after reaching the age of 55, (ii) the employment is definitively terminated and (iii) the departure from the company or its pension scheme results in a gap in the pension provision. In the present case, the taxpayer never declared his intention to end his employment. In addition, in view of the taxpayer's education and professional experience, the lower court was able to conclude that he was in a position to find comparable gainful employment. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of March 14, 2024 (9C_106/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2019 (Lucerne); The taxpayer justifies her right of appeal on the one hand by arguing that the non-declaration of income and assets of her husband, who is now separated, is detrimental to the public interest in lawful taxation. The matter should be examined more closely. In this respect, it is proceeding in the sense of a supervisory complaint and does not represent its own legal position: whether and, if so, for which tax years criminal tax proceedings should be opened against the taxpayer's husband is not the subject of the present proceedings. On the other hand, she asserts as a subjective interest that the intended inclusion of undeclared tax assets would create the conditions for her to (better) defend herself against the withholding of assets by her husband. As the lower court rightly stated, there is no significant interest in instrumentalizing the tax assessment procedure with regard to imminent divorce proceedings or ongoing family law maintenance claims, especially since the proceedings in question have their own means of clarifying the financial circumstances. The situation would be different under certain circumstances if the disputed tax assessment had prejudicial significance in other proceedings (or in subsequent proceedings under tax law) or could otherwise lead to disadvantages. The lower court has conclusively demonstrated that and why such a situation does not exist here. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal insofar as it can be upheld.
Non-entry decisions:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
