Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between April 7 - 13, 2025:
- Judgment of March 18, 2025 (9C_371/2024): VAT 2016 - 2020; In the course of a tax audit, the FTA corrected the fictitious input tax deduction claimed by the complainant, which was active in the vehicle trade, at its discretion, which was confirmed by the lower court both with regard to the entitlement to do so and with regard to the estimate made. The estimation method on the one hand and the question of the allocation of supplies on the other were disputed before the Federal Supreme Court. With regard to the choice and application of the estimation method, the Federal Supreme Court found no violation of the law. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the assessment of the lower court, according to which the indifference of the previous vehicle owners as to whether they were doing business with the vehicle dealer or with the garage owners did not (yet) result in a VAT representative relationship. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of March 21, 2025 (9C_465/2024, 9C_466/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes Basel-Landschaft (2015); The taxable husband is the sole shareholder of various companies. The Malta-based subsidiary I.H. Ltd. of the Maltese parent company H.H. Ltd. held by him, gave a loan in the millions to the Swiss company C. AG, which is directly held by him. For its part, C. AG also granted a loan to the German company F. GmbH, also held directly by the taxable husband. Applying the triangular theory, the lower court attributed the latter to the taxable spouses as income from movable assets (hidden profit distribution). As the cantonal tax administration already attributed the Maltese companies to the taxable spouses from a wealth tax perspective in the 2014 tax period (transparent treatment), the question arose before the Federal Supreme Court as to whether the assets of the Maltese I.H. Ltd. - including the loan claim against C. AG - should be attributed to the taxable spouses for tax purposes, but on the other hand it should be held against the taxable spouses in the context of Art. 20 para. 3 DBG (with regard to the hidden profit distribution) that the funds transferred to C. AG did not originate from them. The Federal Supreme Court did not delve into this question, as it was clear from the annual financial statements of C. AG that the monetary payment by C. AG in favor of its German sister company was not associated with an effective repayment or reduction of the loan claim or a withdrawal of the capital contribution. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court protected the offsetting of further monetary benefits to the taxable husband in his position as shareholder of the companies concerned. Dismissal of the taxable spouses' appeal regarding direct federal tax (9C_466/2024). Non-dismissal of the appeal of the taxable spouses regarding state tax due to failure to pay the advance on costs in good time (9C_465/2024).
- Judgment of March 19, 2025 (9C_504/2024): Intercantonal double taxation (Ticino); the dispute concerns the canton in which A. AG is subject to unlimited tax liability. The chairman of the board of directors and his wife, who is also a member of the company's board of directors, live in Ticino. The same applies to the other employees, who are also all family members. 45% of customers come from Ticino and all of the company's banking relationships were opened in the canton of Ticino. The 2019 accounts also show very low electricity costs in the canton of Graubünden. Consequently, the unlimited tax liability of A. Ltd. in the canton of Ticino must be confirmed for the 2019 tax year, for which the Ticino tax authorities have provided sufficient evidence, but not for subsequent tax years. Partial approval of the appeal of the taxpayer A. AG.
- Judgment of March 24, 2025 (9C_317/2024): Withholding tax (notification procedure) 2010 - 2015; The issue in dispute was whether the complainant had been able to settle its withholding tax liability on monetary benefits from the years 2011 to 2015, as determined by the FTA in the course of an audit, after unconditional payment on the basis of Art. 20 para. 1 and 3 VStG by notification instead of payment. In this regard, the lower court stated that there were no indications that the legislator would have wanted to allow taxpayers to use the notification procedure for tax debts that they had already settled by payment. This would also contradict the purpose of the notification procedure, which is intended to replace the payment of tax and not the refund procedure. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed this and clarified that from the time of unconditional payment, there is no longer anything that the taxpayer could fulfill by reporting, meaning that the tax liability is extinguished with the payment. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of March 19, 2025 (9C_344/2024) - scheduled for publication: State and municipal taxes 2017 (Zurich); The dispute concerns how the tax refund is to be calculated for capital benefits from pension plans if a partial repayment is made to the pension fund after the early withdrawal. The canton of Zurich uses the proportional method to calculate tax refunds for state and municipal taxes: The advance withdrawal of CHF 950,000 made by the complainant in 2017 was taxed at an amount of CHF 93,755. At the end of 2020, the complainant repaid CHF 250,000 and thus 5/19 of the advance withdrawal. Accordingly, 5/19 of the tax amount, i.e. CHF 24,672.40, was refunded to him. It must first be examined whether it follows from Art. 83a para. 2 BVG how the tax refund is to be calculated or whether the cantons have any regulatory leeway in this respect. The calculation of the tax refund depends on the applicable tax rate. In the case of a partial repayment of the early withdrawal, there is only a difference between the proportional calculation and the calculation based on the net amount requested by the complainants if the tax rate is progressive. Tax rates are not subject to tax harmonization and Art. 11 para. 3 StHG therefore does not require the cantons to set a progressive tax rate for capital benefits from pension plans. There are objective reasons to make the refund proportionally and thereby take account of the fact that a higher early withdrawal up to partial re-payment is also accompanied by higher liquidity. The fact that the FTA expressly advocates the proportional method in KS No. 17 (on direct federal tax) can also be taken into account. Rejection of taxable A and B.
- Judgment of March 25, 2025 (9C_56/2024): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2017 (Vaud); The dispute is whether the lower courts were right to confirm that the complainant generated income from self-employment due to the transfer of the properties from his business assets to his private assets, which the gift of the properties entailed. In view of all the circumstances, it is evident that the complainants, with their current assertion that the property was already part of the private assets of the complainant's father at the time of the gift, are displaying contradictory behavior that constitutes a violation of the principle of good faith and does not merit legal protection. Dismissal of the taxable A. and B.
Non-occurrence / write-off:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
