Decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative CourtCW 25 - 2025)

Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between June 16 - 22, 2025:

Judgment of May 23, 2025 (A-4643/2023): VAT 2015 - 2017; supply tax; A AG, domiciled in Switzerland, purchased breeding rights (cover rights) to foreign stallions from persons domiciled abroad in order to subsequently resell them to other persons domiciled abroad. With regard to the purchases, the FTA was of the opinion that these were purchases of services subject to purchase tax (Art. 45 para. 1 let. a in conjunction with Art. 3 let. e and Art. 8 para. 1 VAT Act). A AG, on the other hand, was of the opinion that these supplies were not subject to procurement tax. It qualified these services primarily as supplies within the meaning of Art. 3 let. d MWSTG; secondarily as transactions that are exempt from tax on the basis of Art. 21 para. 2 no. 19 let. e MWSTG (derivative financial instruments). The Federal Administrative Court shared the view of the FTA. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of May 23, 2025 (A-2678/2023): HVF; freezing order; In the present case, it is disputed whether A. must provide a guarantee and, if so, how high this may be. In the present case, the reason for a guarantee under Art. 48 para. 1 lit. aSVAV comes into consideration. It must therefore be assessed whether the payment of future charges appears to be at risk and whether the amount of the requested security is proportionate. The license plates for the disputed vehicles at F. were taken out of circulation again only a few months after the vehicles had been redeemed due to non-payment of the HVF. They were subsequently bought up by A. and redeemed again. There is a close connection between the two owners, as they are brothers and therefore closely related persons. The behavior of the old keeper or its organs may be included in the assessment of the situation of the new keeper. There is therefore a risk to the payment of duties. However, a security deposit of three months is disproportionate. In accordance with case law, a security deposit of one month is considered appropriate in such situations. Partial approval of A.'s appeal insofar as it concerns the amount of the security and dismissal of the rest of the appeal.‍
Judgment of June 06, 2025 (A-2724/2021): Subsequent claim for customs duties; Since the appellant company imported and brokered vehicles into Switzerland, it is jointly and severally liable as the debtor of the customs duties; Dismissal of the appeal of the taxpayer.

Administrative assistance