Facts
The appellant [X.] has been the operator of the restaurant "[A.] " since 1986. In addition, he was self-employed as an interior designer and in the field of interior design. From 1990 onwards, the property in which the restaurant was located was managed by the Zurich Debt Collection Office, as the former owner [Z.] had run into financial difficulties. In 1994, [Y.] acquired the property from the bankruptcy estate and informed the appellant that he was revoking any existing contract for the operation of the restaurant with immediate effect. The appellant resisted the termination, which led to a civil law dispute. For the period from 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997, the appellant did not submit any VAT returns despite repeated reminders. The Federal Tax Administration then estimated the VAT amount owed and initiated debt collection proceedings. The appellant filed an objection to the payment order.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the appellant had carried out an independent activity by operating the restaurant during the period in question and was therefore subject to VAT. The decisive factor is that the appellant always acted in his own name in commercial transactions and accounted for the turnover from the restaurant operation himself. Even if he may have been under a legal misconception about his contractual relationship with the property…