Facts
[F.], born in 1943, has been affiliated with the Lucerne Compensation Fund as a self-employed farmer since November 1, 1969. The Compensation Fund recalculated F.'s personal contributions for 1994/95 and 1996/97 based on rectified tax returns that reported "income from gravel extraction." [F.] filed a complaint against these contribution decisions. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed the complaint. It considered the gravel extraction to be a special form of operational management, which should be attributed to the business assets. Therefore, the resulting compensation was subject to contributions. [F.] then filed an administrative court appeal, requesting the annulment of the contribution decisions. He argued that the gravel revenues were not the result of an activity, but merely the provision of the land to a third party. There was a lack of the necessary connection between the self-employment as a farmer and the gravel extraction.Considerations
The Federal Insurance Court ruled: - The original non-inclusion of the gravel extraction compensation received from 1991 to 1994 in the determination of personal contributions was obviously incorrect. - According to the easement contracts, the appellant was legally and economically involved in the gravel extraction beyond the mere granting of the extraction right. He had various rights and obligations in connection with the gravel extraction, which exceeded the…