Since 1 January 2019, a new provision on forfeiture of the right to reimbursement pursuant to Art. 23 VStG has been in force. If the reimbursement claim has not yet been legally determined, the new law applies to all claims that have arisen since 1 January 2014 (Art. 70d VStG).
«The abolition of the marriage penalty» - ever since the referendum of 28 February 2016, this term has been universally known. Ist popularity has not declined since the lost referendum and has been on
everyone's lips again since 10 April 2019.
In recent years, the exchange of tax information has been massively reinforced by the further development of existing and the creation of new instruments. The aim of the international community is to prevent tax advantages resulting from deliberate concealment of tax data by the taxpayer. Historically, requests for administrative assistance have been a well-known instrument for this purpose. In recent years, the automatic and spontaneous exchange of information have been created as new Instruments.
In March 2018 and June 2018, the Federal Supreme Court issued two rulings regarding tax sovereignty and the determination of the tax domicile in an intercantonal settlement, thereby confirming its previous jurisprudence.
A, who is resident in the Canton of Zurich, makes his way to work every morning with a short 8-minute bicycle ride to the local railway station, in order to then use public transport to the destination station. All in all, the commute takes about 35 minutes. Although using a bicycle, complainant A would also be able to take the bus or even walk to the railway station.
Complainant A, who lives with his wife B in the Canton of Fribourg, is the father of E, who was born in September 1990. In 2003, A committed himself in an alimony contract to pay a monthly contribution of CHF 15'000.00 in favour of E until he had reached the age of 18 or had completed an ordinary education.
In the tax period 2013, the married couple A.C. and B.C. had their tax-relevant domicile in the municipality U. in the Canton of Zurich. At the beginning of the same year, they concluded a contract with E. AG and V. AG regarding a condominium property still to be developed in the municipality W. in the Canton of Aargau.
On 1 April 2008, complainant A. sold a property she had occupied herself in the Canton of Berne at a profit of CHF 5'733'539. However, taxation was deferred due to the acquisition of a replacement property she had used herself in the Canton of
Geneva. She then also sold this replacement property in June 2010 and did subsequently not acquire any new property.
The new Art. 23 VStG has been in force since
1 January 2019 and has fundamentally changed the conditions for withholding tax reimbursement claims. However, for withholding tax claims that arose before 1 January 2014 the old jurisdiction still applies (see 2C_397/2017 of 9 May 2019), which is explained below.
In his 2012 tax return, A. (plaintiff) declared the amount of CHF 14'677.45 as a taxable dividend from his participation in X. AG with its registered office in Germany. But he did not declare the dividends he received by X. AG on 14 May 2012 and on 8 November 2012, which were distributed to him from the company's tax deposit account.
The Swiss Federation of Equestrian Sports applied for a tax exemption for the state and direct federal taxes for the tax periods between 2002 and 2009 on the grounds of the pursuit of public purposes (Art. 56 lit. g DBG). The tax administration of the canton of Berne refused this exemption and did not deviate from this decision in the appeals proceedings.
On 2 July 2009, A. AG (now in liquidation) transferred its registered office from the canton of Lucerne to the canton of Zug, leaving a permanent establishment in U., canton of Lucerne. For the tax period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, A. AG declared a taxable net profit of CHF 26'395 to the canton of Zug in the course of its liquidation, but did indicate the permanent establishment in the canton of Lucerne to the tax administration.
The complainant X. lived in a cohabiting union for several years. Within the framework of this partnership, the couple bought a property and each financed half of the purchase. On 13 May 1998, X.'s partner was granted ownership of the property by notarial certification and X. was granted a right of use to "his" half of the property.
A.A. is the only member of the Board of Directors of B. AG with its registered office in U. On 16 March 2005, he and his then wife were assessed with a taxable income of 65'000 Swiss francs and taxable asset of 0 Swiss francs for cantonal and municipal taxes in 2003, as well as with a taxable income of
59'400 Swiss francs for the direct federal tax in 2003.
In March 2009, C. GmbH, Linz (Austria), asked the tax administration of the canton of Valais to send its clients (hereinafter referred to as "taxpayer") post directly to her home in Linz (Austria) in the future, which the tax administration of the canton of Valais subsequently did.
On 15 February 2017, the amendment of the Federal Act on Withholding Tax (VStG) came into force, which entailed a new regulation for interest on arrears in the reporting procedure.
As the owner of a sole proprietorship, A. declared a total of approx. 50 loans with a total loan sum of more than CHF 30 million in the securities register for the state and municipal tax, or the direct federal tax for the tax period 2008 and claimed write-offs in the amount of CHF 690'063.05 per annum.
The complainants A. A. and B. A. were owners of several properties during the 2008 tax period.
In the first leading case (Zurich case), the Federal Supreme Court granted the complainant, the owner of a property, the deduction of the early repayment penalty in the event of a dissolution of a mortgage.
In 2006, a gainfully employed person (hereinafter referred to as "taxpayer") also bought into a pension foundation in order to finance early retirement.
The taxpayer X, born in 1959, emigrated to Israel on 30 September 2012 with the intention of settling there. Prior to that, X lived and worked in Switzerland and regularly made compulsory contributions to a pension foundation.
In June 2013, a real estate company based in Zurich (hereinafter referred to as X AG) sold a property to Z AG at a price of 32'500'000. Shortly afterwards, X AG submits an application to the Zurich tax authority for a deferral of the property gains tax due to a replacement procurement.
The X AG, located in the canton of Zug, conducted an adjustment at fair value through profit and loss of the book value of its shares in the Y AG in the total amount of CHF 45 Mio. in the fiscal years 1993 and 1995.
By decision of 11 November 2009, the European Commission imposed a fine in the amount of € 348'000 on a Swiss corporation. The Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether or not this fine could be deducted from taxes in Switzerland.
A married couple did not file a tax return for the 2012 fiscal year and was then assessed at dutiful discretion. The assessment grew into legal force.
In 1999, in the course of a couple's divorce, the husband's pension fund capital existent at the time of the divorce was divided up and half of the capital was paid out or allocated to the wife.
On July 23, 2015 the Dutch tax authorities filed a request for administrative assistance based upon the Double Tax Treaty between Switzerland and the Netherlands to the Swiss Federal Tax Authority (FTA) without mentioning the names of the affected persons.
With the ruling from February 22nd 2016, the Federal Court - for the first time - gave its view on the question of how the participation exemption according to Art. 70 Para. 2 lit. B DBG should be interpreted after the new formulation in the CTR II.