Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week of 4 - 10 October 2021.
- Judgment of 22 September 2021 (2C_353/2020): Tourist tax for 2018 (Valais); The levying of a flat-rate tourist tax based on an average of 50 overnight stays per year in second homes does not violate the principle of equal treatment and is not arbitrary. Dismissal of the complaint of the taxpayer.
- Judgement of 25 August 2021 (2C_868/2020): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2014-2015 (Zurich); After-tax; The taxpaying spouses claimed a purchase into the pension fund in their 2014 tax return to reduce tax. They submitted the tax return to the Zurich Cantonal Tax Office on 4 January 2016. On 30 June 2015, the pension fund paid out a lump-sum settlement, which the tax office assessed separately on 6 October 2015. On 21 December 2016, the 2015 tax return was received by the assessment authority. The lump-sum benefit paid out was declared therein. On 22 June 2017, the spouses were assessed for the 2014 tax period, with the deduction for the purchase into the pension fund being granted. On 13 April 2018, the Cantonal Tax Office corrected the assessment decision for 2014 and revoked the deduction for the purchase into the pension fund, because the three-year retention period of Art. 79b para. 3 BVG had been violated. In addition, the Office opened subsequent tax proceedings for the 2014 and 2015 tax periods. What was in dispute and to be examined was whether the lump-sum benefit paid out constituted a new fact (Art. 151 para. 1 DBG). According to the Federal Supreme Court, the 2014 tax return objectively contained a false declaration in that the pension payment was unjustifiably claimed as a deduction despite violation of the retention period of Art. 79b para. 3 LOB. At the same time, the wrongly claimed deduction was not such an obvious misdeclaration that it should already have come to the attention of the assessment authority in the ordinary assessment procedure. This would only have been the case if the complainants had pointed out in the 2014 tax return - for example under the heading "Remarks" - that the lump-sum settlement had already been paid out and assessed at the time of filing the tax return. The tax authority had therefore not violated its duty of due diligence (Art. 153 para. 3 in conjunction with Art. 130 para. 1 of the Federal Tax Act) and had therefore rightly assumed a "new fact". Dismissal of the appeal of the taxpaying spouses.
- Judgment of 22 September 2021 (2C_1043/2020): Concession fee; approval of the appeal by the (alleged) tax debtor.
Non-occurrence / administrative assistance:
- Judgment of 13 September 2021 (2C_650/2021): Administrative assistance DTA CH-IN; dismissal.
- Judgment of 13 September 2021 (2C_651/2021): Administrative assistance DTA CH-FR; Dismissed.
- Judgment of 21 September 2021 (2C_675/2021): Cantonal and communal taxes, direct federal tax (Geneva); dismissal.
- Judgment of 21 September 2021 (2C_344/2021): Water connection fee; non-admission.
- Judgment of 13 September 2021 (2C_602/2021): Staats- und Gemeindesteuern und Direkte Bundessteuer 2018 (Solothurn); Nichteintreten.
- Judgment of 27 September 2021 (2C_607/2021): State and municipal taxes, official valuation as of tax period 2020 (Bern); Dismissed.
- Judgment of 27 September 2021 (2C_745/2021): Staats- und Gemeindesteuern und Direkte Bundessteuer 2016 (Zurich); Nichteintreten.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
