Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme CourtCW 8 - 2025)

Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between February 17 - 23, 2025:

Judgment of January 30, 2025 (9C_522/2024): Direct federal tax and state and communal taxes 2018 (Valais); The Federal Supreme Court did not consider the right to be heard of the taxpayer resident in the UK to have been violated by the publication of an objection decision in the cantonal official gazette. Despite repeated requests, the taxpayer had failed to name a domicile for service or a representative in Switzerland. There were also no grounds for recusal against the President of the Tax Division of the Valais Cantonal Court. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of February 04, 2025 (9C_295/2024): Direct federal tax and state and communal taxes 2018 (Zug); in dispute is the offsetting of profits in connection with the rental expenses for a 5.5-room apartment and the vehicle expenses for a leased vehicle. The assessment of evidence by the lower court regarding proof of the type of actual use of the properties in question is to be reviewed. The taxpayer does not succeed in demonstrating the extent to which the lower court's assessment of the evidence regarding the actual use is arbitrary. Insofar as it confines itself to presenting its own view of the facts, it does not satisfy the duty to state reasons. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of February 04, 2025 (9C_513/2024): Military service tax 2019; A. was naturalized in 2017 at the age of 31. The increased age limit in 2019 pursuant to Art. 3 para. 1 WPEG refers to the age of the conscript in the year in question. With reference to BGE 150 I 144 and the ruling of 9 January 2024 (9C_648/2022) ( see our article of 21 January 2024), the Federal Supreme Court clarified that the levying of the military service tax in 2019 does not violate the prohibition of retroactivity. Dismissal of the appeal by the liable party.
Judgment of February 06, 2025 (9C_437/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2019 (Zug); the allocation of seized assets under tax law is in dispute. A. argued that during a seizure, it could no longer dispose of the assets concerned and the income from them on the basis of Art. 266 para. 4 StPO and, in particular, could not demand corresponding payments from the bank. Their claim was therefore uncertain and economically worthless. It is not apparent and the taxpayer does not argue that, at the time of the seizure - which neither prejudges a confiscation order nor changes the circumstances under civil law - it was not she but her brother who was entitled under civil law or economically to the bank assets in question. The taxpayer's power of disposal over her assets was revoked solely due to the seizure ordered by the state. There is no question that in such cases the assets concerned must be taken into account for tax purposes by the person who is in principle entitled to them. Dismissal of the appeal by taxpayer A.
Judgment of January 30, 2025 (9C_219/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2019 (Appenzell-Innerrhoden); The value adjustments made to a loan to a sister company of A. AG are in dispute. The business justification for a value adjustment can be reviewed in each tax period. The tax authorities were allowed to review the value adjustment in the 2019 tax period regardless of its approval in previous tax periods. A. AG does not dispute the considerations of the lower court, according to which the loan to its sister company was (subsequently) simulated. If the loan was simulated at the latest at the time of the debt waiver in 2019, it constitutes a pecuniary benefit and not the granting of debt capital. Dismissal of the appeal by the taxpayer A. AG.
Judgment of January 31, 2025 (9C_348/2024): Wastewater connection fees 2021 (City of Dübendorf ZH); the wastewater connection fees are in dispute. The Federal Supreme Court found that the fees were set in accordance with the statutory provisions on wastewater disposal and that the principle of proportionality was also observed. There is therefore no unjustified burden on the appellant. Dismissal of the appeal by EMPA Materials Science & Technology.
Judgment of January 30, 2025 (2C_219/2022) - scheduled for publication: Administrative assistance DTA CH-RU; At issue was whether the Federal Administrative Court had rightly confirmed the admissibility of administrative assistance to Russia (even before the Federal Council's decision to temporarily suspend administrative assistance to Russia). The Federal Supreme Court initially considered a further suspension of the appeal proceedings to be inappropriate from the point of view of the requirement to expedite proceedings and ruled on the merits. In doing so, it recognized that the current (and unchanged) circumstances did not offer the necessary guarantees with regard to public policy and the principle of speciality to make administrative assistance to Russia appear permissible. This was particularly the case because it involved the transfer of information that partly concerned Ukrainian nationals. In accordance with the case law on the provision of mutual assistance, the Federal Supreme Court refused to provide administrative assistance. The complainants' appeal was upheld.