Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between February 3 - 9, 2025:
- Judgment of December 19, 2024 (9C_173/2024): State and municipal taxes 2019 (Zurich); tax domicile; In this case, it is disputed whether the spouses A.A. and B.A. moved their center of life to the canton of Graubünden in 2019 or whether they continue to be subject to unlimited tax liability in the canton of Zurich. The lower court examined various pieces of evidence and found that the living conditions in both places were comparable, but that the property in Zurich was still undergoing extensive renovations. The family contacts also did not support a transfer of residence to the canton of Graubünden. The majority of cash withdrawals (18 out of 22 withdrawals) were also made in the Zurich area. Electricity bills and water consumption were also checked. The lower court rightly found that, taking all the circumstances into account, there was no closer relationship with the canton of Graubünden. Dismissal of the appeal by the taxable spouses.
- Judgment of January 15, 2025 (9C_447/2024): Direct federal tax and cantonal tax 2020 (Ticino); tax domicile (departure); The issue in dispute was whether the taxable couple had actually moved their domicile from the canton of Ticino to the canton of Zug in mid-December 2020, as claimed. In the proceedings before the court of first instance, it was particularly important that the couple continued to be employed full-time by employers in the canton of Ticino and had rented an apartment in the canton of Ticino until spring 2021. This led to the confirmation of the tax sovereignty of the Canton of Ticino for 2020. The taxpayers were unable to demonstrate an arbitrary determination of facts by the lower instance before the Federal Supreme Court, insofar as this was substantiated at all. Dismissal of the taxpayers' lay appeal.
- Judgment of January 20, 2025 (9C_499/2024): Direct federal tax and cantonal tax 2012-2017 (Ticino); non-cash benefits; two-dimensional facts; The complainant was the sole shareholder and director of a public limited company. For the disputed years, the tax administration made offsets for non-cash benefits, which consisted in particular of the anticipation of profits. In the personal assessments, the tax authorities made mirrored offsets, against which the taxpayer defended himself up to the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court pointed out that there was no actual automatic offsetting mechanism. In deviation from the usual rules on the burden of proof, a partner who is also a governing body and/or controlling shareholder of the company must substantiate the existence and amount of a pecuniary benefit claimed by the tax assessment authority. If he fails to do so or limits himself to general statements, the assessment authority may in principle assume that the set-off legally assessed at company level is also justified vis-à-vis the shareholder. In the present case, the complainant limited himself to general statements, which led to the dismissal of the taxpayer's complaint.
Non-occurrence:
Depreciation decisions:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
