Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between December 23 - 31, 2024:
- Judgments of 11 December 2024(A-688/2023; A-2907/2023; A-2909/2023; A-3394/2023); VAT 2012-2017; subsequent performance; In the present judgments, the Federal Administrative Court had to examine the legality of the VAT subsequently claimed by the lower instance against the appellant. With regard to the procedural aspects, the Federal Administrative Court criticized the lower instance. The procedure of the lower instance does not appear consistent in the present constellation, namely to initially (i.e. up to and including the issuance of the performance order) demand the additional claim on the basis of Art. 12 VStrR, but to justify the additional claim in the objection decision in its entirety with a discretionary assessment pursuant to Art. 79 para. 1 MWSTG. In the present cases, different constellations were "mixed up". The Federal Administrative Court then examines the legality of the VAT still in dispute and subsequently claimed from the appellant by the lower court. With one exception, the disputed tax corrections made by the lower court are not contested. In summary, the appeals are dismissed insofar as they are upheld.
- Ruling of December 11, 2024 (A-3360/2024): VAT 2014-2018, input VAT deduction regarding dismantling and remediation costs; If the dismantling or remediation is carried out by the previous owner, the right to deduct input VAT for costs incurred is based on the previous use of the property. The "previous use" is deemed to be the period from the acquisition to the dismantling/partial demolition of the property, whereby a maximum of 20 years is taken into account for the calculation of the right to deduct input tax. Consequently, the FTA calculated the right to deduct input tax correctly by taking into account the entire 17-year period of use (and not the last use before demolition). Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of December 18, 2024 (A-5586/2023): Customs; subsequent claim of customs duties and import tax; The taxable person declared a consignment of vine tomatoes at the wrong customs valuation and applied for a correction of its customs declaration under Art. 34 ZG, which was granted to it by the system. A correction is only permitted if there is no breach of due diligence, i.e. if the goods were declared at the wrong customs rate by mistake. As the taxable person deliberately used an incorrect (lower) customs rate, it has breached its duty to make a correct customs declaration. The mere notification of the customs office of the intention to make an additional claim is sufficient for compliance with the one-year additional claim period under Art. 85 ZG; neither the amount nor the legal grounds need to be defined therein. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Updates:
- A-4097/2022 (decision confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court in its ruling of 28.11.2024 (9C_363/2024))
- A-4545/2022 (decision overturned by the Federal Supreme Court in its ruling of 28.11.2024 (9C_365/2024))
- A-2814/2023 (decision confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court in its ruling of 27.11.2024 (9C_302/2024))
- A-3279/2019 (decision overturned by the Federal Supreme Court in its ruling of 25.11.2024 (9C_168/2023))
- A-3038/2022 (decision confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court in its ruling of 15.11.2024 (9C_375/2024))
- A-4733/2022 (decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court)
- A-5117/2023 (decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court)
- A-2846/2024 (decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court)
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
