Dismissal of the subsidiary constitutional appeal due to insufficient justification of the formal requirements for the appeal document

Facts

The taxpayer (born 1967) with her tax domicile in [U.] /BE had filed a remission request against the tax assessment notices of the tax administration of the Canton of Bern (KSTV/BE) for the 2020 tax period. This request was dismissed by the Tax Appeals Commission of the Canton of Bern with a decision dated 17 January 2023, as the taxpayer had not submitted the form and documents within the deadline. Against this decision, she filed a request for reinstatement in the previous status on 7 February 2023, which was also dismissed by the Tax Appeals Commission with an interim decision dated 20 March 2023. Against this dismissal, the taxpayer filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern on 19 April 2023, which was not considered on the merits by judgment dated 27 April 2023 (100.2023.122U) as the appeal clearly did not meet the requirements for a substantive justification (Art. 32 para. 2 VRPG/BE). The Administrative Court justified this by stating that the taxpayer had not addressed the considerations of the Tax Appeals Commission regarding an excusable impediment within the meaning of Art. 161 para. 3 STC/BE. Against this judgment, the taxpayer filed a subsidiary constitutional appeal with the Federal Supreme Court on 24 May 2023 and requested the annulment of the contested judgment.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether there is a question of fundamental importance or a particularly significant case, which it denies. This eliminates the appeal in public law matters pursuant to Art. 83 lit. m FSCA. The requirements for the subsidiary constitutional appeal pursuant to Art. 113 et seq. FSCA remain to be examined. Such an appeal can only allege a violation of constitutional individual rights (Art. 116 FSCA). The Federal Supreme Court will only examine such an allegation if it is sufficiently substantiated in the appeal (qualified obligation to raise and substantiate objections pursuant to Art. 117 in conjunction with Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). However, the taxpayer has neither explained how constitutional individual rights were allegedly violated nor sufficiently substantiated the formal requirements for the appeal document pursuant to Art. 32 para. 2 VRPG/BE.…