Facts
The Federal Tax Administration enforced the X. AG for value-added tax claims in three enforcement proceedings. The Debt Enforcement Office Zurich 1 seized clothing items of the debtor in these proceedings. The third seizure resulted in additional counting, sorting, and transport costs. The Federal Tax Administration requested that the cost shares it had already paid be determined. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich overturned the contested decision and the cost statements of the Debt Enforcement Office and newly determined the cost shares still to be paid by the creditor.
The Federal Tax Administration appealed to the DEBA and requested that the decision of the High Court of Zurich be overturned and the costs in enforcement proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3 be determined.
Considerations
The Federal Court ruled that the Debt Enforcement Office did not abuse its discretion by not demanding a cost advance. The creditor has no claim to bear only costs in the amount of the cost advances. The obligation to provide cost advances puts the creditor in the position of deciding whether to risk these additional expenses or rather refrain from an apparently hopeless enforcement proceeding.
The Federal Court stated that the lower court did not violate federal law when it did not determine the cost shares of the appellant at the sum of the enforcement costs already paid by it. The cost advance obligation thus has a certain prohibitive function. If it is to be expected that the costs will be unusually high and no longer in proportion…