Overview of tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between June 26 - July 2, 2023.

  • Judgment of 7 June 2023 (A-2663/2021): Customs tariff; cleaning products; In the present case, it is undisputed that the products are prepared cleaning products. The only dispute is whether the disputed products are to be classified as "preparations put up for retail sale" within the meaning of subheading 3402.2000 (according to the lower court) or as "other" within the meaning of subheading 3402.9000 (according to the appellant). The lower court argues that it can be seen that the presentation of the products suggests that they are intended for direct sale to the end consumer. The complainant counters that the cleaning agents in dispute are used exclusively in commercial dishwashers (restaurants, canteens, etc.) and are sold in 25 kg canisters directly from the manufacturer or via specialized dealers. After a detailed examination of the facts, the Federal Administrative Court comes to the conclusion that the goods in dispute are to be regarded as "preparations put up for retail sale" according to the general linguistic usage. This term does not imply a specific weight limit. Accordingly, the goods were rightly classified under tariff heading 3402.2000. The appeal is dismissed.
  • Judgment of 13 June 2023 (A-5044/2021): Subsequent claim for import duties; the complainant falls under the broadly interpreted concept of the principal for whose account the goods (not declared to customs) are imported. It is therefore directly liable for the import duties. Dismissal of the appeal.
  • Judgment of June 15, 2023 (A-3818/2022): Additional claim for spirits tax (flat-rate shortfall fee); dismissal of appeal.
  • Judgment of 1 June 2023 (A-4564/2021): Subsequent claim of customs duties, import tax and automobile tax; The disputed vehicle was imported with false information for temporary use, although it was actually delivered to the Swiss resident E., who is to be qualified as an importer. However, due to the Swiss residence of E., the import of the disputed vehicle under the temporary admission procedure was not possible at that time. Based on the established facts, it must be assumed that the complainant, who is jointly and severally liable, is the person who was in charge of the customs declaration and who actually fulfilled the customs formalities. In addition, the complainant's personal joint and several liability under Article 12(2) of the Criminal Code results from his position as a member of the executive body of B. Ltd, in whose name the customs declaration was filed. An exemption from the joint and several liability (or reduction of the amount to be paid in arrears) according to Art. 70 para. 4 lit. a and b ZG is therefore not possible in the present case.Dismissal of the appeal.
  • Judgment of 21 June 2023 (A-3115/2022): Reduction of VAT; A AG acquired two properties from B AG and rented them to B AG on an optional basis; as a result of a legal dispute, a settlement was reached to reverse the purchase agreement, whereupon B AG was registered ex tunc as owner of the properties; due to the reversal, A AG demanded reimbursement of the VAT on the rental income from the FTA; for an ex tunc lapse of the rental agreements, the reversal must actually be executed according to BVG. BVGer, the reversal must actually be executed, i.e. a repayment of the rental income to B AG is required, which had not occurred under any title for the time being; the evidence for a reduction of remuneration within the meaning of Art. 41 VAT Act was thus not provided, in particular, the settlement agreement does not serve as suitable evidence, as it did not comment on the rental agreements; dismissal of A AG's appeal.

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.