Parliament puts pressure on Billag VAT refunds
Silvia Hunziker
The Federal Council must create a legal basis so that the unlawfully levied VAT on radio and television reception fees can one day be repaid. Following the National Council, the Council of States has also approved a motion.
In April 2015, the Federal Court had ruled that the fees were not subject to VAT. In 2017, the Federal Administrative Court held in two rulings that the tax of 2.5 percent, which had previously been wrongly levied, must be retroactively refunded.
The Federal Office of Communications (Bakom) has lodged an appeal against these rulings with the Federal Supreme Court. Billag currently has suspended 4500 applications for restitution up to June 2005.
Now Parliament is also exerting pressure. On Wednesday the Council of States passed a motion by National Councillor Sylvia Flückiger (SVP/AG) by 37 votes to 1. The motion demands that the Federal Council create the legal basis for VAT to be refunded to consumers.
The Federal Council also expressed its agreement with the motion. Doris Leuthard said in the Council of States that the initiative offers the necessary leeway. For the time being, however, the ball was in the court of the Federal Supreme Court, which would have to make a final ruling on the question of restitution.
Do not restrict leeway
However, a motion by the National Council's Telecommunications Commission goes too far for the Council of States. It demands that the value added tax be refunded retroactively for five years. The aim of the motion is to avoid all fee-payers having to go to the courts individually.
The decisions are still pending before the Federal Supreme Court, stressed Commission spokesman Claude Janiak (SP/BL). Against this background, the Federal Council and the administration should be given the greatest possible scope to react to the ruling.
If the Federal Supreme Court were to confirm the ruling of the Federal Administrative Court, the reimbursement would have to be made over a period of ten years. In the view of the Federal Council, the Commission's motion could therefore conflict with case law.
The Council tacitly rejected the motion. This concludes the advance. With the same reasoning, the Council of States also tacitly rejected a professional initiative of the Canton of Geneva. The National Council still has to decide on this initiative.
.
