Overview of tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between July 11 - 17, 2022:
- Judgment of 14 June 2021 (2C_793/2021): Cantonal taxes and direct federal tax 2017; intercantonal double taxation (Ticino, Grisons); The right to a tax domicile ruling only applies in the case of a first-time assertion of a canton's unlimited taxation claim, but not in cases such as the one at hand, where the tax authority does not recognize the departure. In 2017, the place of actual administration continued to be in the Canton of Ticino despite the transfer of the registered office from Ticino to the Canton of Grisons; there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the taxpayer. Dismissal of the appeal against the Canton of Ticino; upholding of the appeal against the Canton of Grisons (in each case for the cantonal taxes; with regard to the direct federal tax, the appeal is dismissed for lack of substantiation).
- Judgment of June 13, 2022 (2C_885/2021): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2016 (Schaffhausen); What was in dispute and to be examined was whether costs that the taxpayers had to bear in connection with the noise and sound immissions perceived by them can be deducted as maintenance costs of immovable property. According to the Federal Supreme Court, it cannot be said in the present case that the amount in dispute is economically and temporally directly and immediately related to the realization of the imputed rental value or a rent, so that it must be deducted on the basis thereof. In other words, it is indispensable that the maintenance costs are offset by a current or past income from immovable assets. Since this connection is lacking here, there are no profit costs within the meaning of Art. 32 para. 2 DBG or Art. 9 para. 3 StHG. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of June 24, 2022 (2C_339/2022): State and municipal taxes and direct federal tax 2017 (Valais); The taxpayer raises several objections and wishes to obtain the annulment of an assessment ruling. However, neither the complaint of violation of the right to be heard, violation of the legal force of the ruling nor violation of the prohibition of double taxation was convincing. The complainants further argue that the requirements for an appeal are met. In the present case, the objections raised by the complainants against the assessment ruling could already have been raised in the ordinary proceedings if the complainants had acted diligently. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
