Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between October 28 and November 3, 2024:
- Judgmentof September 25, 2024 (9C_383/2024, 9C_384/2024 and 9C_385/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2016 - 2018 (Appenzell Ausserrhoden); The issue in dispute here is whether the appellant company has a sufficient legal interest in the correction of its assessment decisions. The assessments did not lead to any profit tax consequences and only the cantonal minimum tax was levied with regard to the capital tax. Nevertheless, the taxpayer would like to correct the assessment factors in order to prevent, among other things, adverse effects on the company's wealth tax valuation for the shareholders. However, the appealing company fails to demonstrate that the "zero assessment" has direct concrete legal effects. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgementof September 25, 2024 (9C_99/2024): Administrative fee pursuant to audit oversight legislation; Pursuant to Art. 21 para. 1 and 3 AOA, the supervisory authority FAOA charges fees for its rulings, reviews and services. The appellant complains that there are no grounds for charging four times the fees previously charged in the proceedings under review here. The court considers the complainant's arguments that the time records of the FAOA are not transparent and contain exaggerated, unjustified expenses to be unjustified. A violation of the principle of equivalence by the FAOA is denied. Dismissal of the appeal.
- Judgment of October 4, 2024 (9C_419/2023): State and municipal taxes 2019 (Geneva); The issue in dispute was whether the tax authorities were right to not consider a lump-sum provision for major repairs to be business-related in accordance with the old practice and to add it to the taxable profit. In this regard, the temporal application of the change in practice, which declared lump-sum provisions for major repairs no longer permissible, was disputed, although the justification for the change in practice itself remained undisputed. The Federal Supreme Court recalled that the protection of legitimate expectations invoked only extends to individual assurances given by administrative authorities and that there is no corresponding protection with regard to administrative ordinances. The abolition of the previous practice with immediate effect and thus without a transitional period was therefore not objectionable. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
- Judgment of October 16, 2024 (9C_478/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2018-2019 (Geneva); The lower court rightly did not respond to the late-filed appeal. The extension of the collection period for registered mail does not change the fiction of service after seven days. Dismissal of the appellant's appeal.
- Judgment of October 10, 2024 (9C_786/2023): Property gains tax 2019 (Geneva); The taxation of property gains from the sale of a property is in dispute. In the canton of Geneva, the taxpayer can request that if the property was acquired more than 10 years ago, the tax value 5 years before the sale is deemed to be the acquisition value if it is a rental property and the tax value 10 years before the sale plus 30% if it is another property. Art. 12 para. 3 lit. e StHG provides for a tax deferral if an owner-occupied replacement property is acquired. This provision is also implemented by the cantons, although a certain amount of leeway remains in some areas. The complainants take the view that special calculation rules for the tax deferral are mandatory. This view cannot be accepted. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
- Judgment of October 15, 2024 (9C_703/2023): State and communal taxes 2010-2013 (Vaud); The question in dispute was whether the property gains tax levied due to a commercial change of ownership can be taken into account with regard to a change of ownership under civil law that has not yet taken place by creating a taxed hidden reserve in the tax balance sheet and thus in deviation from the commercial balance sheet. While it is undisputed according to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court that a taxed hidden reserve must be taken into account in the case of a change of ownership under civil law of a previously completed and taxed commercial change of ownership, the consideration of such a reserve in deviation from the commercial balance sheet requires a statutory correction standard. However, such a standard does not exist. Dismissal of the appellant's appeal.
Failure to enter:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
