Facts
Spouses A.A. and B.A. reside in U. (AG) and were taxed by both the Canton of Aargau and the Canton of Zug on the income from the employment of Appellant 1 in 2007. This resulted in the current intercantonal double taxation.
After the bankruptcy of X. AG, whose registered office was in U., A.A. offered his consulting services through the sole proprietorship [Y.] with its registered office in V. (ZG). The tax authorities of the Canton of Aargau taxed the income from this activity, while the Canton of Zug claimed 50% of the income.
The A. spouses contested the objection decision of the Canton of Aargau, as they were of the opinion that the income from the sole proprietorship [Y.] should be fully attributed to the Canton of Zug. However, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Aargau dismissed their appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court notes that, in principle, the place of residence of a person in dependent employment constitutes their tax domicile, while the income from self-employment is to be taxed at the place of business.
In the present case, it must be examined whether A.A. was actually self-employed in 2007 or whether it was a continuation of his previous dependent employment. The burden of proof lies with the tax administration of the Canton of Aargau, as it was a new establishment after the bankruptcy of X. AG and not merely a relocation of the business domicile.
…