Facts
The appellants, [B.A.] and [A.A.] , had their alpine hut on Alp [X.] completely renovated in the tax years 2009 and 2010. The craftsmen entrusted with the renovation work invoiced the taxpayers for various amounts totaling CHF 209,580.-- between September 2009 and September 2010. The taxpayers paid various craftsmen's invoices totaling CHF 305,285.45 between November 2009 and November 2010.
Since the taxpayers did not file a tax return, the tax administration of the canton of Valais subjected [B.A.] and [A.A.] to an official assessment for the tax year 2010 on January 13, 2012. The taxpayers appealed against this official assessment on January 18, 2012, and submitted their tax return for 2010. However, the taxpayers did not claim the deduction of the actual renovation costs or a lump-sum deduction in the appeal and did not submit any invoices for the renovation.
The cantonal tax administration then did not allow the costs incurred in 2009 and 2010 in connection with the renovation of the alpine hut to be deducted in the 2011 and 2012 assessments. The taxpayers appealed against these assessments on December 19, 2013.
By letter of September 8, 2016, [B.A.] and [A.A.] filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court. They request that the judgment of the Tax Appeals Commission of April 20, 2016, be set aside. The tax deductions for the renovation work should be allocated to the tax years 2010, 2011, and 2012, and the tax assessments should be corrected accordingly.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court applies the law ex officio (Art. 106 para. 1 FSCA). It is therefore not bound by the arguments raised in the appeal or the considerations of the lower court; it can uphold an appeal for a different reason than the one invoked or dismiss an appeal with a reasoning that deviates from that of the lower court.
The lower court has issued a single judgment for the cantonal and communal taxes as well as for the direct federal tax, which is admissible insofar as the legal issue to be decided is regulated in the same way in federal law and harmonized cantonal law. This is the case here: Art. 9 para. 3 DTHA regulates the permissible deductions from income in a conclusive and substantively consistent manner with Art. 32 para. 2 DFTA, and the cantons are obliged to adopt these deductions without deviation or restriction at the cantonal level.
The appellants have undisputedly failed to file a tax return for the year 2010 on time, which is why the tax administration has carried out a discretionary assessment within the meaning of Art. 130 para. 2 DFTA. The appellants appealed against…