Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 8 - 14 June 2020.

  • Judgment of 25 May 2020 (2C_893/2019): Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2009-2012 (Valais); The taxpayer is of the opinion that the lower instance arbitrarily disregarded the percentage of maintenance costs admitted in previous years and thus complains that the lower instance made an incorrect assessment of the facts. The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the previous instance did not make an obviously incorrect determination of the facts. The appeal is therefore dismissed. It also complains of a violation of its right to be heard by complaining that the lower instance did not give reasons why the statement of costs which preserve and increase value was not convincing. This complaint is upheld. Dismissal of the appeal to the previous instance in the sense of the considerations. ‍‍
  • Judgment of 24 April 2020 (2C_216/2020): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2008 (Bern); The dispute concerns a claimed support deduction in favour of the life partner, maintenance, operating and administrative costs for a jointly owned property and the tax rate. Since the taxpayer is half co-owner of the property, only half the deduction can be claimed, even though she has borne the entire costs. With regard to the described employment relationships, the support deduction is also omitted, since no limited earning capacity is proven. The tariff series are dependent on civil status and since you live in a cohabitation but do not have a registered partnership, the single person tariff applies. Rejection of the complaint. ‍‍
  • Judgment of 18 May 2020 (2C_1052/2019): Withholding tax (refund) 2017 (Geneva); the issue is whether taxpayers have lost their right to a refund. For a declaration to be made within the deadline, the declaration in question must be spontaneous, i.e. at the taxpayer's own initiative and not the result of an intervention by the tax authorities. This is not the case in the present case, as inspections of the company have preceded it. However, the claim is not forfeited if the taxpayer acts negligently, whereas negligence is when the consequences of the actions are not recognised or taken into account due to carelessness. However, this subjective fact was not established by the lower court, so the Federal Supreme Court cannot rule on it. The appeal is admissible. Rejection to the lower instance in the sense of the considerations. ‍‍‍‍
  • Judgment of 25 May 2020 (2C_191/2020): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2017 (Vaud); the question is whether the complainants are entitled to have the time limit for a belated appeal filed with the cantonal court restored. The responsible employee of the trustee passed away. There were 10 days between the date of death and the expiry of the deadline for filing the appeal. This would have been sufficient time for reorganisation and therefore the expiry of the deadline is due to negligence. Rejection of the complaint. ‍‍
  • Judgment of 14 April 2020 (2C_978/2019): Church taxes 2015 and 2016 (Solothurn); The complainants objected to the final account of the U./SO residents' association and complained that they do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church and therefore do not have to pay church taxes. The presentation of the facts by the lower courts is binding for the Federal Supreme Court unless there is arbitrariness. This is not the case if the authorities assume membership of a national church on the basis of the (unsigned) residents' personal data sheet and the signed tax declaration of the complainants. Rejection of the complaint.

Inadmissible complaints / decisions not to intervene

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Income Tax
Withholding Tax
Other Taxes