Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between September 23 - 29, 2024:
- Judgment of September 17, 2024 (A-5812/2023): The FTA retroactively entered the taxable person in the VAT register ex officio on the grounds that the taxable person had also provided electronic services to non-taxable recipients from January 1, 2015. As a result, its tax liability was given with regard to the domestic turnover generated in the period in question. According to administrative practice, an additional charge can be waived if the taxable person can prove that the recipient has already paid the supply tax on the services. In the sense of a special case, the large number of service recipients means that explicit proof of the invoiced purchase tax can be waived by submitting individual confirmations from the service recipients. On the basis of the Excel list submitted by the taxpayer with the taxpayer's customer data, it (the FTA) permitted or itself carried out an approximate determination of the invoiced purchase tax based on Art. 80MWSTG. The FTA denied the taxpayer access to the documents in question due to its duty of confidentiality towards third parties. The tax assessment and the procedure of the FTA are not objectionable. Dismissal of the appeal.
Updates:
- Judgment of August 5, 2020 (A-2905/2020): Rejection decision / Import of works of art; In the present case, due to the rejection, the only remaining question to be examined was whether a simulated commission relationship should also be assumed with regard to a "consignment agreement" between the complainant and the gallery(see already our articles of June 7, 2020 and February 3, 2019); The Federal Administrative Court affirms the simulation; The appeal is dismissed, but partially approved with regard to costs and party compensation; Decision confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court.
- Judgment of February 15, 2024 (A-2528/2022): VAT; recipient of the service; The dispute concerned who was the recipient of the service in the case of fees charged in connection with the operation of an airport (either domestic handling agents or domestic and foreign airlines). Depending on how this question is answered, the place of supply is either in Switzerland (handling agents) or abroad (foreign airlines) or the supply is exempt from VAT (domestic airlines). Since the complainant had concluded the contracts regarding the BRTS (use of applications relating to passengers and baggage) and CUTE fees (use of applications and terminals) with the airlines, had then also invoiced them and the service on which the fee is based also primarily served them, the airlines are deemed to be the recipients of the service. In the case of EVA fees (energy and air conditioning supply for aircraft), the airlines are also deemed to be the recipients of the service, as the service directly benefits the airlines. In the case of GSA fees (use of baggage sorting system), the handling agents are the beneficiaries, as this corresponds to the majority of the written regulations and the use of the system primarily benefits the handling agents. Partial approval of the taxpayer's appeal; decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Thedecisions are listed chronologically according to the date of publication.
