Facts
The [X. GmbH] moved its headquarters on August 28, 2001, from the municipality of Kreuzlingen (TG) to Dielsdorf (ZH). It closed its business years on December 31 each year. The tax administration of the Canton of Thurgau issued the assessment for the state and municipal taxes 2001 on March 23, 2004, whereby the Canton of Thurgau claimed the Zurich total factors pro rata temporis (for 265 days). The municipality of Dielsdorf notified the [X. GmbH] of the Zurich tax assessment for the tax period 2001 on February 27, 2004.
The [X. GmbH] lodged an objection against the tax bill of the tax office Kreuzlingen and against the final bill of the municipality of Dielsdorf, but requested a tax separation. The Cantonal Tax Office of Zurich stated that the objection was late, and the [X. GmbH] withdrew its objection.
The [X. GmbH] then filed a constitutional complaint due to intercantonal double taxation and requested that the Canton of Zurich be instructed to levy the tax in its tax calculation only for the period from August 29 to December 31, 2001.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the constitutional complaint due to a violation of the prohibition of intercantonal double taxation was filed in a timely manner. It found that the complaint was filed in a timely manner following the letter from the tax administration of the Canton of Thurgau on August 10, 2004.
The court found that the tax administration of the Canton of Thurgau did not make a material decision on the objection, but rather made a decision not to proceed. However, it decided that the constitutional complaint was filed in a timely manner following the objection decision of the Canton of Thurgau and was admissible.
The Federal Court found that there was an actual (effective) double taxation, as the [X. GmbH] had to pay taxes in both cantons, even though it had moved its headquarters from Kreuzlingen (TG) to Dielsdorf (ZH) on August 28, 2001. It found that the rules developed by the…