Overview of tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between August 1 - 7, 2022:

  • Judgment of 10 June 2022 (2C_673/2021): State and municipal taxes 2012 (Zug); Revision period; The taxpayer real estate company domiciled in Zug sold real estate in the Canton of Zurich in the relevant tax period and was assessed for real estate gains tax there. The taxpayer was of the opinion that the real estate gains taxable in the Canton of Zurich were higher than originally assessed and that this led to an overtaxation of the company's profits, which resulted in an intercantonal double taxation. The tax administration of the Canton of Zug did not respond to the request for revision due to the failure to meet the deadline. The Federal Supreme Court held that the taxpayer was aware of an intercantonal double taxation and thus of a possible ground for revision when the assessment ruling of the second assessing canton was issued. For the commencement of a revision procedure, the point in time at which the assessment ruling of the second assessing canton becomes legally binding is not relevant. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of June 24, 2022 (2C_767/2021): Imputed rental value and wealth tax value of a property; According to the Federal Supreme Court, the complainant's objections regarding the calculation of the imputed rental value (consideration of a tiled stove and the loft in the calculation of the imputed rental value as well as determination of the imputed rental value of the garage space) are not sufficiently substantiated; an underutilization deduction due to the death of the complainant's mother is not granted because the claimed underutilization does not correspond to the model case underlying Art. 21 para. 2 DBG and, moreover, the complainant does not show that he would have to sell his property without the deduction for unused space; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of 24 June 2022 (2C_950/2021): Estate tax of the Canton of Graubünden; in dispute is whether D., who received CHF 1 million in the will of A.A., qualifies as a cohabiting partner within the meaning of aArt. 107 para. 2 StG/GR. The lower court denied this. It took the position that the tax exemption facts can regularly be proven by entries in the register or other easily ascertainable facts. Here, according to the factual findings of the lower court, which are binding for the Federal Supreme Court, there was at no time a joint household, let alone a joint domicile. In the absence of a common domicile, the tax privilege cannot be applied. Dismissal of the appeal of the community of heirs.
  • Judgment of July 7, 2022 (2C_864/2021): State and municipal taxes (Bern) and direct federal tax 2016; After the tax administration had still recognized or at least not questioned the self-employed activity of the complainant despite losses since 2011 until the tax period 2015, the cantonal instances denied the character of a self-employed activity to the professional activity of the complainant for the tax period 2016, because both the objective suitability for profit and the subjective intention to generate profit had been lacking. As no further facts could be established, the tax administration had no choice but to base its assessment mainly on the development of the turnover and profit figures; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of 18 July 2022 (2C_408/2022): Real estate gains tax (Ticino); the taxpayer failed to prove the nature of the work he claimed in the investment costs, which is why the costs were rightly not allowed for deduction; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.


Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.