zsis) - Center for Swiss and International Tax Law

In the case of real estate companies, there is an incentive to shift as much profit as possible away from the tax object "real estate profit" and into the sphere of profit tax. Instead of the purchase of the property, the development of the building and the subsequent marketing being handled by a single company, the functions are split between different companies in a group of companies. This article highlights the associated problems of profit shifting and possible solutions.

In its ruling of November 26, 2024, the Tax Appeals Court of the Canton of Zurich confirmed that a taxpayer can terminate his self-employment and thus claim liquidation gains taxation even if he buys a property from the previous business assets, has it renovated together with another property acquired from his brother and rents it out, as the activity associated with the two acquired properties is not a continuation of self-employment but serves as a private investment.

It is not uncommon for privately held groups to have partnerships and other personal legal entities such as trusts, foundations or private individuals linked by shareholders' agreements at the top of the structure. This article analyzes how such legal entities are to be treated for Swiss and international supplementary taxes and to what extent the provisions of Swiss income and profit tax law have an influence on this.

Tax administrations are increasingly automating their processes and making greater use of AI. They are also obliged to do so due to their duty to ensure efficient and effective administrative action. The authors build on this and examine the requirements that progressive automation must meet in light of the principle of legality, the duty to examine and investigate and the duty to justify and where there is a need for legislative action.

If declaration obligations are breached - both in the mixed assessment procedure and in the self-assessment system - which lead to a (possible) tax reduction, the question of criminal liability regularly arises in addition to the levying of any additional tax. The representative of the taxable person is increasingly being targeted by the tax authorities.

As the legally compliant fulfillment of tax obligations requires knowledge of tax law, which the taxpayer often lacks in whole or in part, many taxpayers seek help in fulfilling their declaration obligations. If there are declaration errors that lead to at least the threat of a tax loss, the involvement of a specialist does not release the taxpayer from their responsibility for their tax declaration. Conversely, the professional involved, the tax advisor, can also be targeted by the authorities responsible for prosecuting tax offenses.

The Federal Supreme Court rulings 6B_90/2024 and 6B_93/2024 of February 3, 2025 raise fundamental questions regarding the criminal liability of tax advisors. The focus is on the requirements for perpetration of tax evasion and incitement to do so, as well as the distinction between permissible tax advice and punishable cooperation. The judgments shed light on the different roles of internal and external advisors and their significance for practice and the application of the law.

As tax evasion presupposes a breach of procedural obligations, this article takes a closer look at the procedural obligations, in particular the taxpayer's duty to cooperate, both in ordinary assessment proceedings and in tax domicile proceedings. Finally, the supplementary tax procedure is also addressed, taking into account the latest case law of the Federal Supreme Court on the terms "unknown" or "new" facts and evidence.