Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 17 - 23 May 2021.

  • Ruling of 26 March 2021 (2C_543/2020): Staats- und Gemeindesteuern 2013 (Aargau); it was disputed whether Art. 79b para. 3 sentence 1 BVG only applies in the event of a lump-sum payment within three years of the purchase or whether this provision already excludes the tax deduction of the purchase if no lump-sum payment is made within three years but a lump-sum benefit is due. The objectified abuse provision of Art. 79b para. 3 sentence 1 BVG is not to be extended to cases in which no capital was actually paid out to the taxpayer within the three-year period, although he could have demanded a capital payment already within the three-year period due to the maturity of the benefit. The argumentation of the tax office, according to which the due date is decisive because the capital benefit is to be considered as having accrued for tax purposes as of this date, is not valid. The tax office's appeal therefore proves to be unfounded and is dismissed.
  • Judgment of 22 April 2021 (2C_400/2020, 2C_405/2020): Direct federal tax and state tax 2011 (Solothurn): The assessment of the lower court proves to be unlawful insofar as it considered that the entire sponsoring contributions made by the company had an (at least indirect) advertising effect and were therefore justified in terms of business; division of the sponsoring benefits and the corresponding consideration of the recipient into a part justified in terms of business and a hidden distribution of profits. The lower court's assessment of the evidence regarding the increase in the shareholder's current account and its legal assessment as a benefit in kind is not objectionable overall. Partial approval of the complaint of the tax office (proceedings 2C_400/2020) and dismissal of the complaint of the complainant (executor) (proceedings 2C_405/2020).
  • Ruling of 7 May 2021 (2C_22/2021): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2017 (Geneva); imputed rental value; In the present case, A. does not agree with the determination of the imputed rental value. The imputed rental value in Geneva is determined on the basis of a questionnaire to be answered. The basic imputed rental value depends on the living space and the number of rooms. However, this value is then multiplied by a coefficient to take into account the type of dwelling, the furnishings, the age and the local conditions. Since this is a property in the construction zone, the local conditions must be taken into account, which was not done in this case. Appeal of the taxpayer A. approved and referred back to the cantonal lower instance for a new determination of the imputed rental value.

Non-entry decisions:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Income Tax
Other Taxes