Overview of the tax law decisions of the Zurich Administrative Court published in July/August 2020.
- VGr ZH, 10 June 2020, SB.2020.00030: Tax sovereignty for the year 2017 (appeal pending before the Federal Supreme Court); The complainant and his life partner each own half of one apartment in the canton of Zurich and one apartment in the canton of Graubünden. Following his retirement, the complainant ended his employment in the Canton of Zurich at the end of May 2017 and is claiming a transfer of residence to the Canton of Graubünden. The Administrative Court considered that there was a natural presumption in favour of the complainant's principal residence in Zurich due to the fact that his apartment in the Canton of Zurich was still available to him at all times. However, there were various indications that the complainant had increasingly shifted his life to the canton of Graubünden after his retirement. These indications would be able to refute the natural presumption. Thus, the main burden of proof for the continued existence of the tax domicile in the canton of Zurich was incumbent on the respondent, which he had not succeeded in doing. Approval of the appeal.
- VGr ZH, 10 June 2020, SB.2020.00007: Lien proceedings (this decision is not yet final and absolute); the complainant purchased a property from H AG, which is owned by him, in June 2016. Previously, in April 2016, the complainant had inquired with the municipal tax office about the property gains tax consequences of this purchase. In October 2016, the municipal tax office informed him that it intended to register a statutory lien on this property as security for the property gains tax that had once been deferred due to the replacement purchase and had not been paid by the former owner. It is disputed whether the complainant, as the new owner of the property, can be held against a lien for a property gains tax that was once deferred. The Administrative Court considered that the lien had been rightly registered on the disputed property on account of the replacement procurement that had taken place. It then argued that the information provided by the tax secretary did not constitute a basis of trust for the question at issue in the present case, which was why the complainant could not rely on the protection of legitimate expectations. Among other things, because the complainant had expressly waived the guarantee of a possible real property gains tax, it could not be assumed that he was acting in good faith. Consequently, the lien could be invoked against him. Rejection.
All decisions of the Administrative Court of Zurich are available here.
