Facts
Parties and procedural history: The appellant [A.] was, during the 2016 tax period, a co-owner of a condominium in the municipality of [V.] (Canton of Zurich) with a share of 848/1000. His life partner [C.] held the remaining share of 152/1000. On 31 October 2016, the appellant deregistered from [V.] to [W.] (Canton of Schwyz). For the 2016 tax period, he submitted a copy of the tax return of the Canton of Schwyz to the Canton of Zurich tax office. On 17 December 2018, the Zurich cantonal tax office requested him to review his tax domicile. The appellant then submitted numerous documents and justified his move by citing the separation from his life partner. The Zurich tax office assessed him for state and municipal taxes for 2016 with a taxable income of CHF 12,460,000.- and a taxable wealth of CHF 10,471,000.-. He unsuccessfully challenged this decision through cantonal legal remedies. With an appeal dated 23 May 2023, he requested the annulment of the judgment of the Zurich Administrative Court of 1 February 2023 and the assessment decision of the Canton of Zurich, and possibly the annulment of the assessment decision of the Canton of Schwyz of 12 June 2018 to avoid inter-cantonal double taxation.
Relevant lower court decisions: The Zurich Administrative Court confirmed the tax sovereignty of the Canton of Zurich for the 2016 tax period, as the appellant had continued to have his domicile in [V.] at the end of 2016. The tax administration of the Canton of Schwyz had previously also assumed unlimited tax liability for the appellant, which he now contested with his appeal.
Considerations
1. Admissibility of the appeal The Federal Supreme Court first examined the formal and substantive admissibility of the appeal. It found that the appeal had been filed within the deadline and was directed against a final decision of a last cantonal instance. The appellant was entitled to file an appeal pursuant to Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA and Art. 73 para. 2 DTHA. The request for annulment of the assessment decision of the Canton of Zurich was considered to be also contested, as it had been subsumed in the judgment of the Administrative Court. The request against the Canton of Schwyz was also deemed admissible, as the conditions for an exception under Art. 86 FSCA were met and the assessment in the Canton of Schwyz could no longer be challenged by ordinary legal remedies.
2. Examination of the tax domicile The Federal Supreme Court based its review on the facts established by the Administrative Court and examined whether these were obviously incorrect or based on a violation of the law. It confirmed the case law according to which the tax domicile is determined on the basis of objective facts recognisable by third parties that manifest an intention of permanent residence. The centre of a person’s life is where the centre of their life interests lies. Where there are multiple contacts with different places, the stronger ties are decisive. Relevant criteria include the habitual residence of family members, social relationships, professional position and living conditions.
3. Assessment by the lower courts The Federal Supreme Court held that the Administrative Court had correctly assumed that the appellant’s domicile at the end of 2016 was in [V.] (Canton of Zurich). The lower court had taken into account numerous indicators, including continued power of disposal over the apartment in [V.] , financial support provided to the life partner, joint activities such as couple therapy and holidays, and the predominant physical presence in the Canton of Zurich. The…