Facts
The case concerns the capital tax assessment of Association A. domiciled in U. for the year 2015. The association has a larger real estate portfolio in 19 cantons, some of which are used as business properties and some as investment properties.
The lower court and the canton of Bern, the domicile canton, applied different methods to allocate the taxable net assets to the cantons. The Federal Supreme Court examined the legality of these methods in light of the principles for avoiding inter-cantonal double taxation.
Considerations
According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, real estate is generally subject to exclusive taxation by the canton where the property is located. For wealth tax purposes, the canton where the property is located must value the real estate at fair market value, whereby the cantons have a certain scope for discretion.
Apart from the real estate, the canton where the property is located may not include the taxpayer's total assets for taxation purposes, but may only take them into account to determine the tax rate. However, the taxpayer must be able to deduct all debts, which is why the cantons must apply a uniform valuation standard for the allocation of the debts.
In the case of associations, the capital tax is not to be levied on the commercial equity capital, but on the net assets according to the provisions on wealth tax. The cantons must…