Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between June 3 - 9, 2024:

  • Judgment of May 21, 2024 (2F_9/2024): Administrative assistance (DTA CH-ES); application for restoration of time limit regarding proceedings 2C_177/2024; the applicants invoke the fact that they are domiciled in Spain and Mexico and that the geographical distance made it impossible to have the appeal signed by all of them within the 10-day appeal period. If they had proceeded conscientiously, the petitioners could have easily signed their appeal with appropriate powers of attorney or an authorized legal representative and thus submitted it (or had it submitted) within the deadline; rejection of the request to restore the deadline.
  • Judgment of May 15, 2024 (9C_139/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes (Thurgau); real estate valuation; in this case, the valuation of a property in the canton of Thurgau is in dispute. The taxpayer claims that a portion of surplus land (area that cannot be separated, built over or used for other purposes) should be excluded from the valuation of the property. However, he is unable to demonstrate to the Federal Supreme Court how the lower court's assessment of the evidence violated his right to be heard. Although the appellant mentions "specific characteristics" of the property (steep slopes, etc.), he does not explicitly and substantiatedly assert why these also lead to the unbuildability necessary for multiple land. With regard to the right to be heard, the taxpayer also argues that an inspection requested by the taxpayer is not mandatory if the court, on the basis of the evidence already taken, comes to the conclusion without arbitrariness that its conviction of the truth or falsity of a fact gained as a result cannot be shaken by taking further evidence. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of April 29, 2024 (9C_662/2023): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2012-2015 (Solothurn); offsetting from simulated loan; A. argues that the lower court offset the loan of B. AG held by him. In particular, it wrongly based its decision on the fact that B. AG was offset due to a hidden profit distribution. This view cannot be followed. The offsetting of a hidden profit distribution at a company does not prejudice the tax assessment at the shareholder level. However, in the case of one-man companies in particular, offsetting at company level may, according to case law, be regarded as an indication that the shareholder has received a pecuniary benefit, even if the tax authorities are not prohibited from conducting further investigations. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of April 29, 2024 (9C_72/2024): VAT 2008-2009; private use of an aircraft; absolute limitation period for the 2008 tax period; with regard to the 2009 tax period, the FSC concludes that the 20% threshold (below 20% private use no adjustment, above 20% is a non-business area, which results in a proportional input tax adjustment) was applied correctly. Partial approval of the taxpayer's appeal. The judgment of the FAC is set aside with regard to the 2008 tax period (due to the statute of limitations). The remainder of the appeal is dismissed.
  • Judgment of May 2, 2024 (9C_86/2024): Official valuation (St. Gallen); The amount of the market value of a property is in dispute. The cantons have a wide scope of regulation and application both in the choice of the method to be applied and in the question of whether and to what extent the capitalized earnings value should be included in the valuation ("optional provision"). In summary, the taxpayers do not succeed in challenging the determination of the market value of their property by the lower court as arbitrary. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
  • Judgment of May 16, 2024 (9C_556/2023): Withholding tax 2014; the appellant spouses demanded the refund of withholding tax on an undeclared dividend from 2014, which was offset in the supplementary tax proceedings. As the application for a refund was only made in 2019 - as part of the objection proceedings against the subsequent tax assessment - the cantonal tax office rejected the application on the grounds of forfeiture due to the passage of time. The Federal Supreme Court supported the arguments of the cantonal tax office and confirmed that the three-year limitation period also applies in cases of negligent non-declaration, although it left open whether such a case even exists. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.


Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.