Facts
This case concerned the deduction of the wife's continuing education costs for courses in Feng Shui and psychological astrology in 1997 and 1998 from the direct federal taxes for the tax periods 1999 and 2000. The cantonal tax administration had initially denied the deductibility of these costs, whereupon the spouses filed an objection. The Tax Appeal Commission of the Canton of Thurgau had upheld the appeal with regard to the direct federal taxes and remanded the matter to the cantonal tax administration for a new assessment. The tax administration filed an administrative court appeal against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court stated that continuing education costs are deductible under Art. 26 para. 1 lit. d DFTA if they are related to the currently practised profession. The Federal Supreme Court orients itself to the principles it had already developed under the former Federal Council Decree on Direct Federal Taxes. Accordingly, costs for continuing education within the framework of the already learned and practised profession are deductible, but not training costs for a new (additional) profession.
In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the disputed expenses for the courses in Feng Shui and psychological astrology are to be classified not as continuing education costs, but as training costs for a new profession as an astrological-psychological consultant. The appellant had not only attended individual courses relevant to her activity as a business manager, but a training course with a diploma degree that is intended to…