Overview of tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between February 6 - 12, 2023:
- Judgment of 30 November 2022 (A-3053/2021, A-3055/2021): MWST 2012-2016 (TCM services provided on an outpatient basis); in dispute is whether TCM services provided in the cantons of AG and ZH are taxable or exempt from tax. The taxpayers are of the opinion that these TCM services are exempt from tax because the respective therapists had the license required under cantonal law to practice the profession independently or were licensed to practice the healing treatment under cantonal legislation. The FTA disputes the latter and considers the disputed TCM services to be taxable. Regarding the legal situation in the canton of AG, it can be noted that until the end of 2017, no professional license was required for naturopaths under a federally recognized diploma. This was not explicitly regulated regarding TCM treatments, but implicitly resulted from the fact that the mentioned profession was not listed in § 10 para. 1 VBOB/AG until the end of 2017. Consequently, providers of TCM treatments in the canton of AG could not have a professional license within the meaning of Art. 21 Para. 2 No. 3 MWSTG in conjunction with Art. 35 Para. 1 Bst. Art. 35 para. 1 let. b MWSTV. In the canton of ZH, only TCM therapists within the meaning of Art. 35 para. 1 subpara. b MWSTV are licensed, who are active under a recognized title and have obtained the corresponding title authorization. The other providers of TCM treatments could therefore not have a professional license within the meaning of Art. 21 para. 2 item 3 VAT Act in conjunction with Art. 35 para. 1 BstV. Art. 35 para. 1 let. b MWSTV. Since the therapists did not have a title permit, they were therefore not authorized to provide medical treatment pursuant to Art. 35 para. 1 subpara. b MWSTV. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal. Decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
- Judgement ofJanuary 30, 2023 (A-5867/2020); temporary admission procedure for works of art and antiques; subsequent collection of VAT; the complainant was unable to prove that the conditions for temporary admission of the works of art and antiques were met, especially since the items in question were for the most part transferred to the complainant's private property after being stored in the duty-free warehouse. Dismissal of the appeal.
Updates/Republications:
- Judgment of 22 March 2022 (A-2704/2020): VAT 2011-2015; waiver of claims by public authorities; subsidy; restructuring contribution (cf. our article of 10 April 2022); decision confirmed by BGer with judgment of 16 December 2022 (2C_368/2022) (cf. the summary in this newsletter).
- Judgment of 22 September 2020 (A-1436/2020): VAT; input tax deduction on demolition work (cf. our article of November 8, 2020); decision overturned by BGer with judgment of September 13, 2022 (2C_876/2020) - intended for publication (cf. the summary in this newsletter).
- Judgment of December 19, 2022 (A-1996/2022); VAT 2013-2017, input tax deduction (see our article of December 31, 2022); decision appealed to the BGer.
- Judgment of December 9, 2022 (A-3486/2020): Temporary admission procedure (cf. our article of December 25, 2022); decision appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Decisions in the area of administrative assistance (incl. updates/re-publication):
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
