Overview of tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between December 12 - 18, 2022:
- Judgment of 15 November 2022 (2C_392/2022): VAT 2011-2015; If the written acknowledgement or the unconditional payment concerns only a part of the amount listed in the notice of assessment, the tax claim becomes final or expires in the amount of this amount; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of 17 November 2022 (2C_295/2022): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2016 and 2017 (Appenzell Ausserrhoden); State and Municipal Taxes (Appenzell Ausserrhoden) and Direct Federal Tax 2016-2017; On the merits, the complainant criticizes that the tax administration did not respond to his objections against the discretionary assessments, which the lower court found to be lawful in the contested judgment. The Federal Supreme Court holds that an assessment authority carries out the assessment according to its discretion if the taxpayer does not fulfill its procedural obligations despite a reminder, or if the tax factors cannot be determined properly due to a lack of reliable documents. In this context, empirical figures, asset development and the taxpayer's living expenses may be taken into account. A corresponding objection must be substantiated and must specify any evidence. The objection of a taxpayer who has been assessed on a discretionary basis and who does not make up for the omitted acts of cooperation by means of the objection, even though it would be possible for him to do so, is not to be accepted. The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the appeal is unfounded both with regard to the direct federal tax and with regard to the state and municipal taxes for the disputed tax periods, which is why it is dismissed.
- Judgment of November 17, 2022 (2C_304/2022): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2017 and 2018 (Solothurn); State and Municipal Taxes (Solothurn) and Direct Federal Tax 2017-2018; In the present proceedings, the question arose whether the lower court was right to confirm the objection decision by which the assessment authority did not respond to the complainants' objection. The complainants took the position that the tax returns for 2015 and 2016, which they had submitted before the expiry of the objection period, were also to be considered as justification for the tax periods 2017 and 2018. Against this background, the objection against the discretionary assessment cannot be considered sufficiently substantiated if it merely refers to a tax return from an earlier tax period. Dismissal of the appeal of the taxpaying spouses.
- Judgment of November 17, 2022 (2C_140/2021): Strassenbeitrag der Einwohnergemeinde Gelterkinden 2017 (Basel-Landschaft); The lower court was allowed to consider in a constitutionally tenable manner that the levying of a road contribution under cantonal law necessarily depends on the fact that the person liable to pay the levy actually receives an individual-equivalent special benefit. Only such a special advantage justifies a special tax obligation that goes beyond the general tax obligation.
- Judgment of November 25, 2022 (2C_700/2022): Post-tax and fine proceedings 2007 and 2008 (Geneva); The tax authorities do not have to take publicly available information into account. In particular, the tax administration is not obliged to conduct further investigations based on media reports in which the taxpayer is mentioned as one of the 300 richest Swiss. The attribution of the assets (including their income) of the Liechtenstein controlled foundation is in line with the practice of the Federal Supreme Court. A spontaneous self-disclosure is excluded if the tax authorities have already initiated investigations. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of November 17, 2022 (2C_473/2022): Value added tax 2016; The amount of interest on arrears is in dispute. Reference is made to the judgment 2C_933/2021 and it is stated that the default interest of 4% for the relevant tax period 2016 is within the scope of Art. 108 lit. a MWSTG. The interest rate can therefore be classified as normal for the market. Regardless of the actual benefit and damage, the purpose of the default interest is to compensate the interest loss of the creditor and the interest gain of the debtor in a lump-sum form. On the other hand, the default interest does not have a penal character and is owed irrespective of any fault in the default. What the complainant objects to this proves to be insufficient to attribute a penal character to the default interest in the specific circumstances of a zero interest environment. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-entry decisions:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
