Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between July 1 - 7, 2024:
- Judgment of June 6, 2024 (9C_271/2024): The spouses reside in the canton of Schwyz. They are each co-owners of a 4.5-room apartment in Davos, for which they each paid an annual flat-rate guest tax. In December 2022, they applied for exemption from the obligation to pay the guest tax, citing the wife's paraplegia. The municipality of Davos rejected the application. The Federal Supreme Court has now come to the conclusion that the arguments put forward by the complainants do not stand up. It is true that there are in fact only two "normal" beds and one care bed in the apartment in question. However, this does not change the fact that the cost burden tax is levied irrespective of the specific benefit or causative share of the liable party and that a certain schematization is permissible when determining the flat rate. The appeal is dismissed.
- Judgment of June 6, 2024 (9D_6/2023): Remission of the taxe professionnelle 2020 (Geneva); the appellant company was assessed for the taxe pfofessionnelle on a discretionary basis. The assessment became final and unchallenged. Nine months later, the company submitted an application for remission, which was rejected. The cantonal appeals against this were rejected, in particular due to the late submission of the application for remission. As the appeal in public law matters was inadmissible in the present case, the petition could only be assessed as a subsidiary constitutional complaint, whereby the complainant was unable to demonstrate a violation of constitutional rights (of a formal nature). Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
- Judgment of June 7, 2024 (9C_356/2023 and 9C_378/2023): State and municipal taxes (Basel-Stadt) and direct federal tax 2012 and 2013; The dispute was whether A. made deductible maintenance payments within the meaning of Art. 33 para. 1 lit. c DBG to his separated wife by assuming the vacation costs and by involuntarily assigning the claim to the cash flow of the (formerly jointly managed) farm. Only payments that are based on a court-ordered obligation are deductible; the deductibility of payments between spouses in deviation from such an agreement requires, among other things, the conclusion of a clear agreement with the other spouse to pay maintenance. Such an agreement had not been concluded. With regard to the cash flow, there is already a lack of a benefit from A. to his wife for deductibility. Dismissal of the spouse's appeal.
- Judgment of June 10, 2024 (9C_393/2023) - for publication: State and municipal taxes from 2018 (Geneva); tax exemption, real estate gains tax; At issue was the question of whether gains from the sale of real estate by an occupational pension scheme are subject to ordinary profit tax or - as the Geneva tax administration ruled in the disputed tax exemption decision - to real estate gains tax. Since the canton of Geneva follows a "materially dualistic" system for the taxation of real estate gains, the Geneva tax administration and the two cantonal courts were of the opinion that the canton of Geneva's "formally monistic" real estate gains tax law was notwithstanding subject to ordinary gains tax. The Federal Supreme Court countered this by stating that the harmonization law provision according to which occupational pension schemes are "in any case subject to real estate gains tax" is unambiguous and that the cantons have no leeway in this regard. The recording of the appellants' real estate gains with the ordinary profit tax thus proves to be contrary to harmonization. Appeal of the complainant upheld.
- Judgment of June 18, 2024 (9C_143/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2018 (Zurich); The issue in dispute and to be examined was whether the lower instance violated federal law by affirming the existence of a new fact (for a subsequent tax procedure). The appellants do not explain which facts should have been known to the tax authorities at which point in time, but merely make a general reference to the contested judgment. In particular, they do not demonstrate that the lower court's finding that the partial waiver of the repayment of the loan was not evident from the tax return should be manifestly incorrect. They do not deal with the contested decision in depth and merely criticize it on appeal. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
