Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between 2 - 8 May 2022:
- Judgments of 31 March 2022 (2C_174/2022; 2C_175/2022): State and municipal taxes and direct federal tax 2014 and 2015 (Appenzell-Ausserrhoden): In dispute is whether the assessment authority interrupted the limitation period for assessment with its notices of 27 September 2019 concerning the 2014 tax period and 12 October 2020 concerning the 2015 tax period. The present letters are a legally sufficient written communication by the assessment authority in which it wanted to announce the assessment rulings still to be made. The sole purpose of the letter was to interrupt the statute of limitations. The limitation period was therefore successfully interrupted. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment from 21. December 2021 (2C_418/2020): Decree (of the Canton of Berne) of 21 March 2017 on the general revaluation of non-agricultural real estate and water forces (AND/BE 2017); intended for publication; the subject matter of the dispute in the present proceedings of the abstract review of norms is the compatibility of Art. 2 para. 4 AND/BE 2017 with supraordinate law. The provision stipulates the following in the context of property revaluations: "For the determination of official values, a target median value in the range of 70 per cent of the market values shall be aimed at." The Federal Supreme Court only annuls a cantonal or communal decree if the norm evades any interpretation compatible with superior law, but not if it remains justifiably accessible to such an interpretation. As far as valuation norms in particular are concerned, such norms are only to be annulled on the occasion of the abstract review of norms if their application as a whole would lead to clearly unlawful or untenable results. A violation of Art. 14 StHG exists if the valuation standards lead to systematic and significant over- or undervaluations. Even taking this leeway into account, however, a target median value of 70 per cent is to be described as contrary to federal law. With a median of 70 per cent, it can be assumed that the likely resulting outcome would lead to an average that does not stray too far from this value, so that a significant number of values would actually be lower than 70 per cent. In the case of the property tax value, for which the law expressly designates the market value as decisive, such a deviation (unlike in the case of the imputed rental value) is no longer compatible with federal law. The objection that the (purely cantonal, non-harmonised) property tax burden is taken into account when determining the property tax value is also irrelevant. Appeal upheld.
Non-entry decisions:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
