Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (CW 34 - 2024)

Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between August 19 - 25, 2024:

Judgment of July 18, 2024 (9C_107/2023): Customs duties and import tax 2013 (tax liability; subsequent collection, temporary use); appeal against the judgment of the FAC, see our article of 25.12.2022, dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of July 18, 2024 (9C_184/2023): Customs duties and import tax 2016 (tax liability; subsequent collection, temporary use); appeal against the judgment of the FAC, see our article of 05.02.2023, dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of July 18, 2024 (9C_187/2023): Procedure for temporary import and export; Subsequent collection of import duties; The subsequent collection in connection with the import of antique objects); Appeal against the judgment of the FAC, see our article of 12.03.2023, Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of July 18, 2024 (9C_203/2023): Customs duties and import tax 2016 (tax liability; subsequent collection, temporary use of works of art); appeal against the judgment of the FAC, see our article of 26.03.2023, dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
‍JudgmentJuly 23, 2024 (2C_1010/2022): Administrative assistance (CH-FR); As a legal question of fundamental importance, the Federal Supreme Court had to clarify whether the redaction of the date of issue of Form A to determine the beneficial owner of a bank account is permissible if this date is before the period to which the request for administrative assistance relates. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the opinion of the lower court, according to which the opening date of a bank account is not likely to be relevant if it lies outside the period covered by the request for administrative assistance. The redaction of the date of issue is permissible in such cases. The complainant was unable to explain why the redaction of the date of issue should be inadmissible. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
Judgment of July 31, 2024 (9C_756/2023): VAT (2020); The dispute is whether the FTA rightly denied the taxable person the deduction of input VAT on consulting services. The taxable person took the view that the time of receipt of the invoice alone is decisive for the deduction of input VAT, not the time of receipt of the service. The lower court is of the opinion that there is no entitlement to deduct input tax in accordance with Art. 28 of the VAT Act if the conditions are met when the invoice is issued or when the invoice is received, but not when the service is received. The opinion of the lower court contradicts the wording of the law and there is no reason to deviate from it by way of interpretation. Input tax deduction is excluded if the supplies subject to input tax have already been consumed at the time of commencement of the business activity, even if the invoice is not issued until after the tax liability has been incurred. The taxpayer's appeal was upheld and the matter was referred back to the FTA for the arithmetical implementation of the input tax deduction.