Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between September 9 - 15, 2024:
- Judgment of August 8, 2024 (9C_67/2024): VAT 2013-2016; attribution of supplies; at issue was whether an online platform for food deliveries from partner restaurants was allowed to invoice both its own supply and the delivered food at the reduced rate. The FAC was of the opinion that both services were economically attributable to the platform (see our article of December 31, 2023). However, the Federal Supreme Court, which dealt with this issue following an appeal by the FTA, came to the conclusion that the platform had only acted as an intermediary. Consequently, it should have invoiced the delivery fees collected via its platform at the standard rate and should not have been allowed to claim input tax on the amounts forwarded to the partner restaurants. Partial approval of the FTA's appeal (2013 tax period was time-barred).
- Judgment of August 22, 2024 (9C_184/2024): Cantonal and communal taxes 2020 (Valais) and direct federal tax; the legal dispute concerns the question of the deductibility of investment costs for energy-saving measures in 2020 that were incurred by the taxpayer before the 2020 tax period. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, the prohibition of the actual retroactive effect of (tax) laws prevents the application of a norm to circumstances that were already concluded before it came into force. The tax administration rightly argued that the costs for which the taxpayer claimed a deduction were incurred before January 1, 2020, i.e. at a time when the possibility of a deferral within the meaning of the new Art. 32 para. 2bis DBG had not yet existed. It therefore correctly rejected the deduction of the costs incurred in 2019. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of August 6, 2024 (9C_113/2024): Cantonal and municipal taxes 2019 (Graubünden); the dispute was whether the lower court was allowed to make a substantive ruling after the tax administration did not accept the objection to the discretionary assessment or whether it should have referred the matter back to the tax administration for reassessment. Since the tax administration had already made a substantive assessment in the decision not to intervene in the sense of a contingent justification, the lower instance was free to examine the contingent justification and make a substantive decision itself. Moreover, the lower court rightly assumed that the proof of incorrectness failed with the submission of the merely provisional documents (annual accounts, audit report, tax return). Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Decision not to enter:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
