Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 27 April - 3 May 2020.

  • Judgment of 9 March 2020 (2C_93/2020): State and municipal taxes of the Canton of Zurich, tax period 2012; the amount of taxable assets for wealth tax was disputed. Due to the strong personal involvement of the company, the lower court equated the taxable value with the mean value between income and net asset value. The entire net assets, valued at market value, are subject to property tax, whereby the capitalized earnings value can be taken into account appropriately. The cantons have some leeway in determining the rules according to which the market value is to be assessed and also with regard to the appropriate consideration of the capitalised earnings value. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
  • Judgment of 17 March 2020 (2C_826/2019): State and municipal taxes of the Canton of Zurich and direct federal tax, tax periods 2004-2009; the dispute was whether the surviving spouse was entitled to the simplified subsequent taxation. The Federal Supreme Court held that a bank account in the name of both spouses does not suffice as proof of who owns the assets and therefore in the present case it cannot be sufficiently proven that the untaxed assets in the two bank accounts should have been allocated to the deceased spouse. Anyone claiming that a particular asset is the property of one or the other must prove this. If this proof is not successful, co-ownership of both spouses is assumed. In such cases, it is appropriate to divide the assets in half on a quota basis between the simplified and the ordinary after-tax procedure. Approval of the taxpayer's complaint.
  • Judgement of 14 April 2020 (2C_1069/2019): Cantonal and municipal tax, direct federal tax 2001-2008 (Jura), acceleration requirement; right of appeal; the appeal for violation of the acceleration requirement proves to be unfounded from the outset; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgement of 2 April 2020 (2C_754/2019): Community fees charged by the municipality to the complainant who has put a car wash into operation; the calculation of the amount charged is neither arbitrary nor does it violate the principle of equivalence or the principle of equal treatment; dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
  • Judgment of 14 April 2020 (2C_953/2019): State and municipal taxes 2011 (Geneva); No violation of the right to be heard if the hearing of witnesses is waived, provided that the relevant information is already apparent from the letter and no new findings can be deduced from the testimony of the witnesses; Application of the practitioner method proves to be appropriate in the present case; dismissal of the taxpayer's complaint.

Inadmissible appeals / decisions not to intervene:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Income Tax
Wealth Tax