Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between August 12 - 18, 2024:
- Judgment of July 24, 2024 (9D_10/2024): Direct federal tax and state and communal taxes 2021 (Bern); tax remission; dismissal of the taxpayer's subsidiary constitutional complaint with regard to the state and communal taxes of the Canton of Bern, dismissal with regard to the direct federal tax.
- Judgment of July 17, 2024 (9C_292/2024): State and municipal taxes 2019 (St. Gallen); The appellant taxpayer is contesting the non-admission of his appeal regarding his assessment for the 2019 cantonal and municipal taxes. In his appeal application, he requests that he be granted an extension of 30 days to submit his grounds for appeal. However, the canton of St. Gallen abandoned the practice of regularly granting such extensions in 2020 and communicated this to the public in a circular. The arguments put forward by the taxpayer against these changes in practice were not successful. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal in the simplified procedure.
- Judgment of July 25, 2024 (9C_158/2024): VAT, tax periods 2013 - 2018; The disputed issue is, among other things, the amount of the tax claim that has become legally binding due to a limitation period for assessment (Art. 43 para. 1 lit. c MWSTG). The tax claim comprises the net amount of the taxable person's input tax credit. The lower court held that the FTA cannot assert a subsequent claim for the tax period due to the expiry of the statute of limitations. It denied a refund claim ("negative tax claim") because the appellant had not submitted a self-declaration. In the present case, it is not a question of an ordinary statement (Art. 71 para. 1 MWSTG) or a correction within the finalization period (Art. 72 para. 1 MWSTG), but of a declaration that was only submitted several years after the finalization period had expired. In view of the above, the appeal proves to be unfounded and is dismissed.
- Judgment of July 17, 2024 (9C_53/2024): Fees for property valuation (Graubünden); The issue in dispute was whether the fee charged by the competent authority for a revaluation of a property following extensive renovation was lawfully set. The lower court considered the requirements of the legal basis (requirement of standard level and standard density as well as delegation) to be fulfilled and the principle of cost recovery and equivalence to be upheld and confirmed the legality of the fee charged. This assessment was upheld by the Federal Supreme Court. Dismissal of the appeal by the taxpayers.
- Judgment of July 25, 2024 (9C_159/2024): State and municipal taxes and direct federal tax 2018 (Zurich); The dispute is whether the taxpayer was rightly granted neither the child deduction pursuant to Art. 35 para. 1 lit. a DBG nor an increased insurance premium deduction pursuant to Art. 33 para. 1bis lit. b DBG and was taxed at the basic rate. The taxpayer has paid maintenance contributions and was able to make a corresponding deduction from income. As a result, the taxpayer is not entitled to a child deduction or an increased insurance premium deduction and must be taxed at the basic rate. The taxpayer did not succeed in demonstrating that the legislator exceeded the permissible limits of schematization and lump-sum taxation by creating the prohibition of accumulation - i.e. by making it impossible to claim a deduction for maintenance costs and a child deduction for the same child. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
