Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between 21 - 27 February 2022:

  • Judgement of 25 January 2022 (2C_1020/2021): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2015-2016 (Zurich); objection, restoration of time limit; According to her own statements, the taxpayer suffered from psychological complaints between October 2016 and August 2019. It had therefore been impossible for her to comply with her direct tax obligations to cooperate. Subsequently, the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich proceeded with the assessment at its discretion (assessment rulings in April 2017 [tax period 2015] and April 2018 [tax period 2016]). In November 2018, while still ill, the taxpayer lodged an objection against the assessment ruling for the 2017 tax period, which had also been issued on a discretionary basis, submitting a fully completed tax return. The taxpayer did not file an objection to the assessment rulings for the 2015 and 2016 tax periods until September 2019 and submitted requests to the assessment authority to restore the missed objection deadlines. The legal question at issue before the Federal Supreme Court was whether the taxpayer had been able to meet the 30-day deadline for reinstatement with her applications. In the area of direct federal tax, the relevant law is found in Art. 133 para. 3 DBG; in the area of state and communal taxes, it is found in cantonal law (cf. § 15 para. 1 and 2 StV/ZH; LS 631.11). The Federal Supreme Court concludes that it was already possible and reasonable for the taxpayer to at least mandate a tax representative in November 2018. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Ruling of 27 January 2022 (2C_839/2021): State and municipal taxes and direct federal tax 2015 (Zurich); The taxpayer made a purchase into the occupational pension plan on 5 May 2015 and claimed this as income-reducing in the tax return. On 26 January 2018, he received a lump-sum benefit from the pension fund. The Zurich cantonal tax office offset the legally assessed deduction of the purchase to the extent of the drawn lump-sum benefit in the post-tax procedure (including interest) due to the violation of the blocking period stipulated in the BVG. The Federal Supreme Court confirms this procedure and states that any purchase made into the occupational benefit scheme during the three-year blocking period must be excluded from the tax deduction retrospectively. This applies even if the benefit is withdrawn from another pension fund. The blocking period is objectified. It is not necessary to examine whether the conditions for tax avoidance exist. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of 02 February 2022 (2C_613/2021): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2014-2016 (Vaud); the question in dispute was whether the proceedings were null and void and also whether the fines for attempted and completed tax evasion should be set aside. Both were denied in the present case. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of 4 February 2022 (2D_38/2021): Administrative fee for use of public land; dismissal of the appeal of the taxpayers.
  • Judgment of 27 January 2022 (2C_688/2021): State and municipal taxes (Zurich) and direct federal tax 2005-2009; tax claims for the 2006 tax period that have not yet been legally assessed are absolutely time-barred at the end of 2021; in all other respects, however, the (partial) discretionary assessment is to be upheld. Partial approval and remittal of the appeal to the lower court for the purpose of deducting the amount that is time-barred.

Failure to enter/assistance:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Treaties
International Tax
Wealth Tax
Income Tax
Other Taxes
Capital Tax