Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (CW 29 - 2024)

Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between July 15 - 21, 2024:

‍Judgmentof June 18, 2024 (9C_186/2024): Direct federal tax and cantonal and municipal taxes 2020 (Geneva); the dispute is whether A. is entitled to appeal against the judgment of the administrative court of first instance in Geneva. In its ruling of 13 March 2023, the administrative court of first instance deemed the taxpayer's appeal against the objection decisions of 5 May 2022 to be irrelevant, as it was of the opinion that the taxpayer had been fully vindicated in the main proceedings due to the assessments corrected by the tax administration and that there was therefore no longer any interest worthy of protection. The taxpayer does not argue anything to the contrary and therefore the court's view must be upheld. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of June 26, 2024 (9C_762/2023): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2008-2012 (Geneva); consideration of AHV contributions in the assessment of supplementary taxes; in particular, the question of whether the AHV contributions owed on undeclared income from self-employment should be deducted ex officio in the case of supplementary taxation was disputed. The lower courts were of the opinion that the taxpayer had culpably failed to take into account the (additional) AHV contributions presumably owed. The Federal Supreme Court states that the assessment must reflect the taxpayer's actual financial circumstances as far as possible, which is why the anticipated AHV contributions must also be taken into account. Partial approval of the appeal.
Judgment of June 24, 2024 (9C_257/2024): Direct federal tax as well as state and municipal taxes 2010 (Vaud); fine for attempted tax evasion; in its ruling of December 6, 2023 (9C_582/2023), the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the existence of non-cash benefits from his company (provision of an apartment; private share of vehicle and travel expenses) with regard to the same complainant. For the 2010 tax period, the non-cash benefits were offset in the ordinary assessment procedure (additional tax was levied for the 2008 and 2009 tax periods). Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant disputed in particular that the subjective facts were fulfilled, as he had openly declared the relevant facts and used a fiduciary company for the bookkeeping. The Federal Supreme Court deemed the appeal to be manifestly unfounded. Dismissal of the appeal in simplified proceedings.
Judgment of June 25, 2024 (9C_627/2023): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2010-2018 (Geneva); the issue in dispute was whether the former sole shareholder and board member of a company that had reported itself for tax evasion (hidden profit distributions) should be granted party status in the subsequent tax and fine proceedings. The cantonal courts and the Federal Supreme Court denied this, as the complainant was unable to demonstrate a legitimate interest in party status. This was particularly because he was at best indirectly affected by the outcome of the proceedings against the company due to the lack of an actual automatic settlement mechanism and, in view of the current status of the proceedings, he was only hypothetically directly affected. Direct involvement could at best be assumed if the impunity of the company's voluntary disclosure were to be denied and the joint liability of the complainant were to be upheld. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
Judgment of June 19, 2024 (9C_291/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2008 - 2016 (Zurich); supplementary tax proceedings; in dispute is a supplementary tax ruling based on discretion. The appealing taxpayers overlook the fact that the potential subject matter of the dispute before the Federal Supreme Court is limited to the question of obvious incorrectness, as was already the case in the proceedings before the lower court. In its ruling of March 27, 2024, the Administrative Court of Zurich explains in detail why the tax authorities' additional tax calculations were lawful. The taxpayers, on the other hand, only come up with insufficient objections. The Administrative Court therefore rightly protected the objection decisions of the Zurich tax office. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
Judgment of June 27, 2024 (9C_30/2024): Real estate gains tax (Ticino); determination of investment costs; The complainant complains that the planning costs and brokerage commissions claimed were not taken into account when determining the investment costs and that the sales costs were only incompletely taken into account. However, the appellant did not complain of a violation of federal law, but limited himself to the demand for a more favorable cantonal practice with regard to the consideration of investment costs. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.

Non-occurrence: