Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published in the week of 9 - 15 October 2017.
- Judgment of 28 September 2017 (A-4178/2016): Customs duties; import duty on fruit wine and monopoly charge; classification under tariff heading 2208; this tariff heading covers, inter alia, alcoholic beverages with added sugar (e.g. alcoholic beverages produced by mixing ethyl alcohol with juices); the fruit wine meets the requirements for so-called "alcopops" laid down by law and case law and is therefore subject to the monopoly charge of CHF 116 per litre of pure alcohol; the appeal is dismissed
- Judgment of 28 September 2017 (A-2388/2017): Application for remission of value added tax; sale of art objects on the online platform "www.ricardo.ch"; according to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, it is not sufficient for a tax remission that the taxpayer was in error due to legal ignorance of his or her tax liability; it would have been reasonable for the complainant to enquire about the legal situation with a specialist or directly with the FTA; no "excusable reason" within the meaning of Art. 92 (1) (a) MWSTG; a remission is not admissible; the appeal is dismissed.
- Judgment of 24 August 2017 (A-1462/2016): Withholding tax; application for refund; interpretation of the concept of residence in accordance with the Swiss-US DTA; rejection of the application due to lack of residence in the USA; in the present case, the applicant is not resident in the USA but in the UK as a "non-domiciled" resident; refund of the withholding tax by the FTA; if the refund cannot be based on Art. 51 VStG, Art. 62 ff. OR applicable to public law claims by analogy; decision contested at the Federal Supreme Court.
- Judgment of 3 October 2017 (A-5069/2016): VAT (subjective tax liability); the tax exception under Article 21(19)(e) of the VAT Act requires, as under the old law, that there be direct representation; the change in practice made by the FTA in this respect in MBI 14 is unlawful; the services provided by the complainant (abroad) concern the supply of customers and would therefore not be covered by the exception under Article 21(19)(e) of the VAT Act even if they were. 21 no. 19 let. e MWSTG if they were provided in Switzerland; in the present case, the complainant waived the exemption from tax liability within the time limit; acceptance of the complaint.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
