Tax liability based on personal affiliation for the tax period 2010

Facts

The married couple [A.A.] and [B.A.] had a joint civil domicile in [U.] (Canton of Thurgau) until the end of January 2007. As of January 31, 2007, [A.A.] deregistered from his domicile community, as he took up a position with [C. AG] (headquartered in [V.] ) in [W.] (South Africa) on February 1, 2007, as part of a transfer. [B.A.] changed her civil domicile to [X.] (Canton of Zurich) on August 22, 2007, where she moved into the house that the married couple [A.] had already acquired in June 2006 and which was in their joint ownership.

[A.A.] subsequently spent 301 days in 2007, 309 days in 2008, and 197 days in 2009 in South Africa, while [B.A.] spent 156 days in 2007, 202 days in 2008, and 156 days in 2009 there. During this time, they lived in a house provided by the employer.

In February 2009, [A.A.] founded [D. AG] (headquartered in [X.] ) with his wife [B.A.] , for which [A.A.] continued to be commercially active in South Africa after his retirement on July 1, 2009. Upon his retirement, the married couple [A.] rented a self-furnished three-room apartment in South Africa. Furthermore, [A.A.] took on a board of directors mandate at [E.] Company (headquartered in [W.] , South Africa).

By assessment decision of September 25, 2013, the married couple [A.A.] and [B.A.] were jointly assessed for the tax period 2010. The Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich assumed unlimited tax liability for both. The plaintiffs appealed this assessment to the FSCA.

Considerations

The FSCA has dealt with the appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich of April 18, 2018. The plaintiffs requested the annulment of the judgment of the lower court and the remission of the case to the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich for reassessment of the cantonal and municipal taxes as well as the direct federal tax 2010.

The FSCA has established that the appeal is admissible and that the plaintiffs are entitled to appeal. The appeal can specifically claim a violation of federal law. The FSCA applies the law ex officio and generally only examines the arguments raised.

The plaintiffs have argued that they have proven that even the Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich assumed a voluntary separation of the spouses and a domicile of the plaintiff husband abroad in its tax return forms and assessments for the tax period 2007. The lower court failed to consider this evidence and thus violated the right to be heard.

However, the FSCA has…