Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week from 19 to 25 August 2019.

  • Judgment of 22 July 2019 (2C_1045/2018): Direct federal tax and cantonal and municipal taxes 2011, 2012 and 2013 (Neuchâtel); the complainant took part in a mission at the SWISSINT competence centre in southern Sudan (5 October 2011 to 31 October 2012) and in South Korea (14 April 2013 to 24 April 2014) respectively; the circular letter No 1 of 30 April 2014, dated 30 July 2019 (2C_1045/2018) June 2010 provides that for single persons staying abroad for a period of up to one year, the taxpayers continue to reside in the canton of Neuchâtel; in the present case, on the basis of the individual facts, in particular the actually short days of stay in the canton of Neuchâtel, the lack of family and friendly relations in the municipality and the permanent residence abroad, it is to be assumed that no unlimited tax liability existed during the stay abroad in the canton of Neuchâtel; acceptance of the complaint in the sense of the considerations.
  • Judgment of 17 July 2019 (2C_943/2017), official publication planned: Value added tax (VAT); subjective tax liability; "Mediation within the meaning of Article 21(2)(19)(a) - (e) VAT Act occurs [...] if a person causally works towards the conclusion of a contract in the area of monetary and capital transactions between two parties without himself being a party to the mediated contract and without having a vested interest in the content of the contract. The brokerage service is to be distinguished from the mere introduction of customers, which is not directed towards a concrete contract, but has a multitude of as yet unspecified potential future contracts in mind. The provision of customers is a service in the area of advertising or information procurement. The remuneration for this activity is referred to as a "finder's fee"; it is not exempt from VAT, irrespective of how it is structured by the parties" (E. 4.5.4.). Against this background, the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) was right to refuse registration in the VAT register to a company that exclusively provides brokerage services. Appeal of the FTA upheld.
  • Judgment of 26 July 2019 (2C_1021/2018): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Tax 2014 (Jura); the complainants had duly informed the tax authority that the trustee C. GmbH was their tax representative The authority should therefore have forwarded its decision to the complainants' trustee in order to obtain a valid notification. The complainants' complaint is upheld in so far as it is admissible.
  • Judgment of 9 August 2019 (2C_463/2017, 2C_466/2017): Decree (of the Canton of Bern) of 21 March 2017 on the general revaluation of non-agricultural land and water resources (AND/BE); "the contested Article 2(3) AND/BE 2017 infringes the principle of separation of powers. If it had been, the target value would have had to be enshrined in law, which would have led to the competence of the Grand Council (Art. 74 para. 1 CT/FD) and the possibility of an optional referendum (Art. 62 para. 1 lit. a CT/FD) [...]. The provision in question is therefore not subject to any constitutional interpretation and must be repealed. (E. 2.5.3) The complaint (procedure 2C_466/2017) is upheld and Art. 2 para. 3 AND/BE 2017 is to be repealed. A detailed examination of the second complaint is therefore not necessary. The appeal of the municipality of Bern (procedure 2C_463/2018) is not taken into account. However, the appeal by A. (procedure 2C_466/2017) is upheld. Art. 2 para. 3 of the decree (of the Canton of Bern) of 21 March 2017 on the general revaluation of non-agricultural land and water resources is repealed.

Decisions not to intervene / inadmissible appeals

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

‍

Tax topics covered in this post:
No items found.