Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 15 - 21 June 2020.

  • Judgment of 10 March 2020 (2C_665/2019): Real estate gains tax 2017 (Schwyz); The dispute concerns the content and scope of the congruence principle. The principle of comparable circumstances or the congruence principle serves to ensure that only unearned appreciation based on external circumstances is recognized. If a building is completely or predominantly demolished and a new building is constructed, it is obvious that the proceeds from the subsequent sale no longer relate to the demolished buildings. It is therefore correct not to allow the costs of demolishing the building as expenses when determining the land gain on the new superstructure. Dismissal of the appeal. ‍‍
  • Judgement of 30 April 2020 (2C_713/2019): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes; withholding tax liability from 2010 (Zurich); disputed was the local jurisdiction for issuing the ruling on the withholding tax liability. The law stipulates that in the case of a material tax liability in the canton of residence/stay or weekly stay, the canton of reference (in the present case Schwyz) must transfer the tax to the canton (Zurich) with material entitlement. However, it is not possible to deduce from this that the canton with material jurisdiction is responsible for the payment. However, the ordinance stipulates that if there is mutual agreement, the tax can be levied according to the tariff of the canton responsible and can also be delivered directly to this canton. There is no mutual agreement in this case. Approval of the appeal. ‍‍
  • Judgment of 26 May 2020 (2D_19/2020): State and municipal taxes 2016 (Bern); the dispute was whether tax remission was possible. In deciding whether a hardship case exists, the entire financial circumstances of the taxpayer at the time of the decision are decisive, taking into account future prospects. The lower court must agree that it was possible and reasonable for the taxpayer to settle the outstanding taxes. Rejection of the appeal. ‍‍‍‍
  • Judgment of 1. May 2020 (2C_332/2019): State and Municipal Taxes 2015 (Aargau); The taxpayer was active as a self-employed farmer before his son took over the business; In view of this, he sold the business inventory to his son and leased the immovable fixed assets to him; In his tax return, he acknowledged this as a cessation of self-employment, which is why the profit from the sale of the inventory is taxed preferentially; Overall, only a passive investment is recognisable, which is why the self-employment was abandoned; Approval of the taxpayer's complaint. ‍‍‍
  • Sentence of 25. May 2020 (2C_939/2019): State and Municipal Taxes 2014 (Zurich); The dispute was whether an "atypical sub-participation" should be qualified as business assets (in the opinion of the Canton of Zurich) or as private assets (as the Canton of domicile, Schwyz, assumed); As the taxpayer's advisory activity for the group had already been ongoing for a long time, it was obvious that there was a business connection between the acquisition of the participation in the subsidiary and the gainful employment; The lower instance concluded that the acquisition of the shareholding would have been almost inconceivable without the preceding consulting activity; The lower instance was allowed to conclude that the shareholding was wholly (or at least predominantly) closely related to the self-employment of the holder of the shareholding, dismissal of the taxpayer's complaint to Zurich / approval of the complaint to Schwyz.

Inadmissible complaints / decisions not to intervene

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Property Gains Tax
Income Tax
Gift Tax