Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published in the week of 2 - 8 October 2017.
- Judgment of 25 September 2017 (A-7466/2016): Car tax; subsequent claim order/proof of origin; registration of seven passenger cars in the electronic procedure (e-dec) for duty-free (preferential) import; proof of origin for the seven passenger cars; it is disputed whether import duties can be claimed in arrears despite the granting of preferential treatment because the complainant did not produce the original proof of origin for the imported cars in response to a request made to her more than one and a half years later; no claim to preferential treatment; the complaint is dismissed.
- Judgment of 7 September 2017 (A-2540/2017): Administrative assistance (DTA Switzerland-India); requirement of presumed relevance met; no prohibited "fishing expedition"; no violation of the principle of good faith under international public law; blackening of presumably irrelevant information on persons who are not connected with the request for administrative assistance (in this respect the appeal is partially upheld); decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
- Judgment of 28 September 2017 (A-5691/2015): Withholding tax; joint and several liability of the liquidator; the requirements for the assumption of a de facto liquidation and thus a joint and several liability of the liquidator are not fulfilled in the present case.
- Judgment of 25 September 2017 (A-3061/2015): Withholding tax; application for refund of withholding tax on the basis of a double taxation agreement (DTA Switzerland - France). In contrast to other DTAs, there is no ordinance governing the reimbursement procedure for withholding tax in the DTA Switzerland-France. In such cases, the solution applicable in connection with other DBAs must be applied analogously or the FTA's rulings may be challenged directly before the SNB by means of an appeal, in contrast to the procedure under internal law, which provides for an objection to be raised first (as also in SNB decision A-4693/2013). The DTA Switzerland-France does not regulate the restitution procedure and in particular the examination of the entitlement to restitution, or Art. 31 para. 2 is not detailed enough in this respect, which is why Art. 48 para. 1 VStG is applicable. In the present case, the information requested by the FTA (including the identity of the contracting parties) was of importance and its request was reasonable for the applicant.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
