Facts
The appellant, [X.] , a divorced AHV pensioner, deregistered in Kreuzlingen on 20 May 2005 and has since referred to himself as a "globetrotter". However, the tax administration of the canton of Thurgau found that [X.] was still subject to unlimited tax liability in Kreuzlingen after 20 May 2005. The appellant lodged an appeal against this decision, claiming that he had given up his domicile in Kreuzlingen and withdrawn to a foreign country.
The Administrative Court of the canton of Thurgau dismissed the appeal and found that the appellant had not provided evidence that he had actually given up his domicile in Kreuzlingen. The appellant lodged an appeal with the Federal Court, claiming that the lower court had violated his right to be heard and disregarded the principle of equal treatment of the parties.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appeal and found that the lower court had not violated the appellant's right to be heard. The lower court was not required to reproduce all of the appellant's submissions in detail in the facts of the case. The Federal Court also found that the appellant had not provided evidence that he had actually given up his domicile in Kreuzlingen.
The Federal Court also pointed out that the tax domicile is not freely…