Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between January 22 - 28, 2024:

  • Judgment of January 3, 2024 (9C_154/2023): VAT 2019; The taxable AG was entered in the VAT register on April 1, 2019. On May 24, 2019, it sold its shares in two companies in which it held shares together with others. Various foreign advisors were engaged with a view to selling the two companies. In Q2/2019, the taxpayer declared the subscription tax on the consulting services received. It deducted the same amount as input tax. The FTA did not allow the input tax deduction for the most part and justified this by stating that the services received before the commencement of the subjective tax liability did not entitle the taxpayer to deduct input tax. With a view to April 1, 2019, which was the cut-off date, the FTA assumed that all services received were to be allocated on a pro rata temporis basis over a period from the conclusion of the respective contract to the cut-off date and a period from the cut-off date to May 24, 2019. It only allowed the input tax to be deducted insofar as the invoiced services - in accordance with the pro rata allocation of fees - were provided after the cut-off date. The Federal Supreme Court essentially protects this practice and, with regard to the input tax deduction claimed by the taxpayer, states that the accounting treatment of the services received is not decisive for the question of input tax deduction (Art. 32 para. 2 sentence 3 MWSTG) and therefore Art. 72 para. 2 MWSTV takes precedence as lex specialis to Art. 70 para. 1 MWSTG, which is why the consulting services were already consumed at the time they were received and no input tax deduction is permissible. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of December 19, 2023 (9C_545/2023): State and municipal taxes 2007 (Aargau); liability ruling; The taxpayer applied for a liability ruling due to the husband's inability to pay. The StV, as well as the lower courts, rejected this, as there were only loss certificates against the husband for claims under public law. By analogy with tax remission, the Federal Supreme Court considered that no targeted privileging of individual creditors (here: private creditors) was permissible and that it would be contrary to good faith if only debts owed to the public authorities were not settled. In such a case, it is not arbitrary if an exemption from joint and several (co-)liability is refused and the decision of the lower court is therefore tenable. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of December 22, 2023 (9C_124/2023): Cantonal and communal taxes and direct federal tax 2000-2006 (Geneva); In view of the history of the present case, it is not objectionable that the lower court qualified the taxpayers' Indonesian divorce decree as contrary to public policy or an abuse of rights and did not annul the taxpayers' joint and several liability for the existing tax debts. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal insofar as it can be upheld (in particular with regard to non-harmonized cantonal law).

Decisions on non-admission and write-offs:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.