Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between March 31 and April 6, 2025:
- Judgment of March 19, 2025 (9C_793/2023): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2014 (St. Gallen); timing of the monetary benefit; In this case, it was disputed in which tax period the monetary benefit of CHF 500k was received: 2010, when the shareholder loan was capitalized at CHF 2.5 million and only CHF 2 million was paid to the property seller due to a complaint, or 2014, when the remaining amount was paid privately by the spouses in accordance with the court decision and the asset loan was increased by the same amount at JP. The inflow in question only took place at the time of the new increase in the loan account. Appeal by the assessment authority upheld.
- Judgment of March 13, 2025 (9C_559/2023): Cantonal and municipal taxes 2017 (Valais); At issue was whether the lower courts had rightly concluded that the profit made from the sale of a property was attributable to the appellant A. as income from self-employment and that the profit shares paid to C. and B. AG did not constitute a business-related expense. A. initially claimed that he had only held the property in trust for C. and B. AG. The asserted fiduciary relationship has already been denied by the highest court with regard to the 2016 tax period (see judgment 2C_864/2020 of March 8, 2021; see our article of March 28, 2021). With regard to the capital gain generated in 2017, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that this was generated in the context of self-employment. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the full transfer of the capital gain to C. and B. AG did not constitute a business-related expense, as it had not been proven that the payment was offset by a benefit from C. and B. AG. Instead, the payment constituted a non-deductible appropriation of profits. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of March 7, 2025 (9C_397/2023): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2019-2020 (Neuchâtel). The dispute concerns whether the taxpayer A. can claim half the parental rate for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. The Federal Supreme Court has ruled in other judgments that the multiple application of the parental rate to separated or divorced taxpayers is excluded(BGE 141 II 338, confirmed in BGE 143 I 321 E. 6.4). In these rulings, it decided that in cases in which the divorced spouses have joint parental custody with equal alternating custody, no maintenance payments are made and the parents have agreed to contribute equally to the maintenance of the child, the divorced parent with the lower income is to be regarded as the one who essentially contributes to the maintenance of the child. Therefore, taxpayer A. is to be granted the parental rate. Partial approval of the appeal of taxpayer A.
Non-occurrence / write-off:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
