Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between December 9 - 14, 2024:
- Judgmentof November 8, 2024 (9C_171/2024); cantonal and communal taxes (Geneva) as well as direct federal tax 2010-2015; the issue in dispute was whether the complainant was rightly offset against monetary benefits in the context of a supplementary tax procedure and whether it was rightly fined for tax evasion. The background to this was that the group of companies concerned handled a large part of its sales via group companies abroad (namely D Ltd.), whereby the tax authorities were of the opinion that the place of actual management of these companies was in Geneva. In order to settle a legal dispute in this regard, the group submitted a ruling to the tax authorities in which it explained its intention to establish a principal company domiciled in Geneva and to process its sales via this company. The ruling was confirmed at the end of 2006 and amended in 2009. The principal company was founded in 2007. However, as the sales were not processed via the principal company as defined in the ruling, but continued to be processed via D Ltd., the tax authorities attributed the profits of D Ltd. to the principal company and levied additional taxes for the tax periods 2010-2015 and imposed fines for these tax periods for completed tax evasion. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the ruling from 2006 could not form a basis for taxation and was not binding on the appellant, especially as it had not signed the ruling. Furthermore, the tax administration had not even begun to examine whether and to what extent the arm's length principle had been violated. The Federal Supreme Court rejected the objections to the binding nature of the ruling as unfounded and downright disloyal. Furthermore, the appellant had not shown how the tax authorities had violated the arm's length principle. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of November 14, 2024 (9C_240/2024): Cantonal and communal taxes (Valais) and direct federal tax 2016-2017; The present dispute concerns deductions for purchases into occupational pension schemes. The cantonal court had ruled that the payment of the capital in question had been made less than three years after the complainant had made the last purchases from the pension foundation, which is why subsequent taxation was permissible with regard to Art. 79b para. 3 BVG. The Federal Supreme Court confirms that the special circumstances cited by the taxpayer that led to the lump-sum withdrawal are irrelevant for the application of Art. 79b para. 3 BVG. The taxpayer is also unable to convincingly demonstrate that the competent tax authorities violated the principle of good faith. The taxpayer's appeal is dismissed.
- Judgmentof November 19, 2024 (9C_207/2024): State and municipal taxes (Zurich) and direct federal tax 2016; The dispute is whether the lower court was right to assume that the brokerage commission was paid to the taxpayer for tax purposes in 2016. The background to this is an agreement regarding brokerage commission with four Luxembourg companies and two individuals (sellers) and the taxpayer B.A, which was concluded in 2016. According to this agreement, the sellers agreed with B.A. on September 20, 2015 to pay her a commission of 1% of the purchase price in the event of the successful brokerage of the real estate portfolio in Switzerland. A claim is deemed to have been acquired at the time at which the creditor acquires a fixed claim that he can actually dispose of. The claim is fixed if the claim is enforceable and there is certainty regarding both its existence and its scope, whereby it is sufficient if its amount can be determined according to objective criteria. The Federal Supreme Court came to the conclusion that an inflow under tax law could only be assumed in 2016 and not in 2015, as it was only the agreement concluded in 2016 that provided the taxpayer with a basis for enforcing its claim against the sellers. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of November 19, 2024 (9C_420/2023): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2012-2015 (Geneva); the taxpayer is unable to prove that the GmbH shares in question belong to her father and were only held by her in a fiduciary capacity. The offsetting of the taxpayer's shares in the limited liability company due to non-cash benefits is lawful; with regard to unrecognized income, this is directly attributable to the taxpayer per se; with regard to recognized costs, which amount to private expenses of the father, in application of the triangular theory. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-admission / request for revision:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
