Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.A.] , represented by Tax Competence AG
  • Respondent: Tax Administration of the Canton of Bern

Facts:

  • [B.A.] , the father of the appellant, was a self-employed livestock trader and was punished for violations of animal welfare regulations and driving under the influence of alcohol.
  • The Tax Administration of the Canton of Bern assessed [B.A.] by discretion from the mid-1990s until his death in 2017, as he did not file tax returns.
  • After the death of [B.A.] , [A.A.] applied for the revision of the final assessments from the year 2005 and filed an objection against the assessment for the year 2016.
  • The Tax Administration rejected the revision requests and objections, and the Tax Recourse Commission as well as the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern confirmed these decisions.
  • [A.A.] then filed an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, aiming to establish the invalidity of the discretionary estimates and to achieve a revision of the assessments.

Considerations

The appeal is directed against a final, case-closing cantonal judgment in a matter of public law. The appeal in public law matters is admissible, as no exception under Art. 83 FSCA applies. The previous instance issued a single judgment for the cantonal taxes as well as for the direct federal tax, which is admissible insofar as the legal questions to be decided are regulated equally in federal law and in harmonized cantonal law.

The previous instance correctly established that the discretionary estimates for the tax years 2006 to 2015 are not void. The assessment authority determined the tax factors in accordance with its duty, and there are no indications that the assessments are obviously incorrect or arbitrary. The previous instance freely evaluated the evidence of the appellant and concluded that the assessments are not void.

Revision of the assessments is excluded, as the appellant has not presented significant facts or decisive evidence that could not have been asserted in the ordinary procedure. The previous instance correctly established that the father of the appellant did not comply with his duty to cooperate in the assessment procedure and did not…