Overview of the tax law decisions of the Zurich Administrative Court published in August and September 2021.
- VGr ZH, 17 May 2021, SB.2021.00018: Offsetting of a lump-sum management fee to a sister company (this decision is legally binding):
The lump-sum management fee of CHF 70,000 booked by the taxpayer to a sister company is disputed. The taxpayer claimed that these were fees for construction management carried out by the sister company. She did not submit any contractual agreements or other written records that could have proven this until the administrative court. The Administrative Court did not take into account the inspection of plans, requests for quotations, etc. that were offered for the first time before the Administrative Court due to the prohibition of novelties. It concluded that there was no evidence that the sister company had ever carried out construction management/planning work for the benefit of the taxpayer, which is why the lower court was right to refuse to recognise the corresponding expenses for tax purposes. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal insofar as it was upheld. - VGr ZH, 26 May 2021, SB.2021.00037: Request for recusal against tax commissioner (complaint pending before the Federal Supreme Court): The complainant alleges that the tax commissioner in charge violated the duty of care as head of proceedings and the protection of legitimate expectations by lying and preventing him from inspecting the files. After a detailed examination of the objections raised, the Administrative Court concludes that there are no apparent grounds that would indicate bias on the part of the tax commissioner involved. Dismissal of the taxpayer's complaint.
- VGr ZH, 21 April 2021, SB.2021.00011: Cognition of the administrative court and the prohibition of novelties (this decision is final): Due to a lack of sufficient justification, the tax office did not respond to the taxpayers' objection against the discretionary assessment. Even before the Tax Appeals Court, they only supplemented their factual presentation insignificantly. Thus, the taxpayers did not make up for the omitted acts of cooperation in a legally sufficient manner, neither in the objection nor in the appeal proceedings, and consequently did not provide the proof of incorrectness that was incumbent upon them. The cantonal tax office was therefore right to disregard the objection. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
All decisions of the Administrative Court of Zurich are available here.
