Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published in the week from 18 to 24 November 2019.

  • Judgment of 5 November 2019 (2C_160/2019): flat-rate tax credit, international service of official documents; by invoking the principle of good faith, an official document can fulfil its purpose even if it contains irregularities. The direct service by post of an official document on a person residing in France does not constitute a serious infringement of the sovereignty of the States concerned and therefore enters into force unless the decision is contested within a reasonable time. Rejection of the complaint.
  • Judgment of 4 November 2019 (2C_29/2017): State and municipal taxes 2008 (Canton of Aargau); the complainant had made a purchase of CHF 19,468 into the occupational pension scheme in 2008. In 2010, he withdrew an amount of CHF 176,106 from the same BVG collective foundation. The purchase was not permitted in the investment procedure. Before BGer, the complainant asserted that it was not in accordance with the law to apply the three-year period in accordance with Art. 79b para. 3 sentence 1 BVG also to advance withdrawals serving to promote home ownership. After interpreting the provision, the BGer comes to the conclusion that the advance withdrawal for the purpose of promoting home ownership is equivalent in tax terms to a second pillar old-age, survivors' or disability benefit. The BGer concluded: "In practice, therefore, any capital payment during the three-year period is also abusive, and any payment made during this period is excluded from income deduction without it being necessary to examine whether the conditions for tax avoidance are met" (E. 3.4.2). Dismissal of the complainant's complaint.
  • Judgment of 30 October 2019 (2C_533/2018): State and municipal tax 2014: tax domicile; in previous years, despite part-time employment of both spouses, residence in the canton of Nidwalden was assumed. Only the loss of the husband's professional activities as a result of an accident, if the wife's situation remains unchanged, cannot be interpreted as the loss of the previous domicile. The Canton of Solothurn was unable to demonstrate a significant change in the facts. Approval of the complaint.
  • Judgement of 6 November 2019 (2C_650/2019): Cantonal tax of the Canton of St. Gallen and direct federal tax, tax period from 1 September 2014 to 31 December 2015: The question was controversial as to whether membership fees and donations to an association are to be treated from a tax point of view as a profit-neutral transaction or whether these fees are counterproductive and serve to promote the personal interests of a member. According to constant jurisprudence, membership fees are monetary payments on the part of the association members for the realization of the community purpose in the interest of all members. The new profits generated by the association are to be recorded as taxable income, but not the funds provided by the members of the association. On the other hand, payments made by members in return for services rendered by the association or for the promotion of the member's personal interests are generally not membership fees. In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court comes to the conclusion that the membership fees are based on a consideration from the association and must therefore be included in the taxable profit. Rejection of the complaint.

Non-occurrence decisions / inadmissible complaints:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

‍

Tax topics covered in this post:
No items found.