Facts
The appellant X. acquired an agricultural business with inventory in St-Blaise/NE on October 28, 2005. On January 26, 2006, he received a plot of land in the municipality of Rümlang/ZH from his father as an advance on his inheritance, which he sold to a real estate company on February 24, 2006. In his tax return, X. applied for a tax deferral pursuant to Art. 12 para. 3 lit. d DBG, as he had used the proceeds to acquire the replacement property in St-Blaise. However, the tax authorities rejected the tax deferral, as the two properties were not functionally equivalent.
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the rejection of the tax deferral. It stated that according to the federal legal theory of replacement acquisition, the proceeds of the sale must be used to acquire a replacement property with the same function. Since the acquired agricultural business in St-Blaise/NE had a significantly more extensive function than the sold property in Rümlang/ZH, the required functional equivalence was lacking. Furthermore, the property in Rümlang was sold solely for…