Facts
The complainant [A.] was assessed as unlimitedly tax-liable in the canton of Zurich for the tax period 2010. However, he claimed that his tax domicile was in the canton of Zug. The complainant was registered at the address [Y.] strasse in [P.] /CustA from 2009 to 2011 and alleged that he had lived with his brother and sister-in-law. The lower court concluded that the complainant had his tax domicile in [O.] /ZH, based on evidence such as bank statements and credit card receipts.
The complainant requested that his ex-wife, brother, and sister-in-law be questioned as witnesses to clarify the tax domicile. The lower court refused the witness questioning and concluded that the FTA had violated the right to be heard, but that this violation had been cured by the lower court.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the complaint and concluded that the lower court had violated the right to be heard by refusing the witness questioning. The lower court should have conducted the witness questioning to clarify the complainant's tax domicile.
The Federal Court found that the lower court had acted arbitrarily by hardly attributing any probative value to the…