Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between December 2 - 8, 2024:
- Judgmentof November 4, 2024 (9C_185/2024, 9C_188/2024): VAT 2014; recipient of services; The dispute was over who was the recipient of services for fees charged in connection with the operation of Zurich Airport (either domestic handling agents or domestic and foreign airlines). Depending on the answer to this question, the place of supply is either in Switzerland (handling agents) or abroad (foreign airlines) or the supply is exempt from VAT (domestic airlines). The services in dispute - EVA fees (energy and air conditioning supply for the aircraft), BRTS fees (use of applications relating to passengers and baggage), CUTE fees (use of applications and terminals) and GSA fees (use of the baggage sorting system) - were undisputedly provided by the handling agents. Zurich Airport argued that these handling agents were merely auxiliary staff, as it only granted the right to use the central infrastructure to the airlines, which in turn could choose whether to carry out ground handling alone or with the assistance of a handling agent. However, the Federal Supreme Court relied on the operating regulations, according to which the service providers and self-handlers are obliged to use the central infrastructure facilities and since the handling agents actually used the central infrastructure, they were therefore the debtors of the disputed fees and consequently also qualified as VAT recipients. The conflicting contracts and invoices serve as an important indicator for the VAT allocation of services. However, if the allocation of services already results from public law, the specific contracts and invoices are of no decisive importance. Approval of the FTA's appeal regarding three supplies (EVA, BRTS & CUTE), rejection of the taxpayer's appeal regarding one supply (GSA).
- Judgment of November 15, 2024 (9C_643/2023): Cantonal and communal taxes (Neuchâtel) and direct federal tax 2018 - 2020; in dispute is whether the cantonal court was right to deny the deduction of maintenance contributions that the taxpayer had claimed in his tax returns. The cantonal court found that the taxpayer had never been married, but lived in a cohabitation. He claimed a violation of Art. 33 para. 1 lit. c DBG. The clear wording states that only maintenance payments to the divorced, judicially or actually separated spouse and maintenance payments to a parent for the children under their parental care are deductible, but not payments in fulfillment of other maintenance or support obligations under family law. It follows that maintenance payments to other beneficiaries are not deductible. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of November 4, 2024 (9C_321/2024); tax jurisdiction from the 2018 tax period (Ticino); the tax domicile of A. GmbH was at issue, which, in the opinion of the Ticino tax administration and the lower court, was not located in Graubünden from the 2018 tax period, but rather in the canton of Ticino. Since the registered office of the company was located at the claimed domicile of the sole shareholder of A. GmbH, the finding in parallel proceedings that the tax domicile of the sole shareholder was also located in the canton of Ticino (see judgment 9C_322/2024 of November 4, 2024 below) played an important role. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the company was unable to argue anything that would have made the determination and assessment of the facts by the lower courts appear arbitrary. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of November 4, 2024 (9C_322/2024); tax jurisdiction from the 2017 tax period (Ticino); The dispute was whether the appellant spouses were not subject to unlimited tax liability in the canton of Graubünden from the 2017 tax period, as claimed, but in the canton of Ticino. The spouses were unable to present anything to the Federal Supreme Court that would have made the lower courts' findings and assessment of the facts appear arbitrary. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
- Judgment of November 20, 2024 (9C_265/2024, 9C_266/2024): State and municipal taxes 2019 (Basel-Stadt); the tax residence of the appellant siblings was in dispute. In addition to a violation of the right to be heard and arbitrariness, in particular a reversal of the burden of proof allegedly contrary to federal law was complained of, in that the tax administration of the Canton of Basel-Stadt relied on the presumption that the previous tax domicile in Basel-Stadt - despite moving to the Canton of Schwyz - still existed. The Federal Supreme Court denies a violation of the principle of investigation and an inadmissible reversal of the burden of proof. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Failure to enter:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
