Facts
The A. AG, a company with its registered office in U./ZG (previously V./ZG), was definitively assessed by the Cantonal Tax Administration of SocRA for the tax periods 2015 to 2018, with all tax factors being taxed in the Canton of SocRA.
In a letter dated 8 December 2020, the Zurich Cantonal Tax Office informed A. AG that, following an audit of related companies, there was a suspicion that the statutory registered office of A. AG did not correspond to the place of actual management. The Canton of Zurich then claimed tax sovereignty over A. AG as from 1 January 2015 by means of a preliminary decision dated 12 May 2022. The objection filed against this was dismissed by a decision dated 19 July 2022, and the appeal against this decision was also dismissed by the Tax Appeals Court of the Canton of Zurich by judgment dated 27 January 2023.
On 16 May 2023, A. AG filed a request for revision with the Cantonal Tax Administration of SocRA and applied for the revision of the assessments for cantonal and municipal taxes and direct federal tax for the tax periods 2015 to 2018. The Cantonal Tax Administration of SocRA did not take the revision request into consideration by decision dated 7 July 2023 due to the expiry of the deadline. The objection decision dated 7 September 2023 against this was also dismissed.
The Administrative Court of the Canton of SocRA dismissed a complaint by A. AG against the objection decision by judgment dated 18 July 2024. With an appeal dated 13 September 2024, A. AG applied for the annulment of the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of SocRA dated 18 July 2024 and the decision of the Cantonal Tax Administration of SocRA dated 7 July 2023. It argued that the deadline for filing the revision had been met by the submission dated 16 May 2023 and applied for the revision request to be referred back to the lower court for consideration on the merits.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examined whether inter-cantonal double taxation could constitute a ground for revision in respect of direct federal tax. It found that the appellant had not substantiated any admissible ground for revision. Article 147 paragraph 1 DFTA does not list inter-cantonal double taxation as a ground for revision, and, apart from exceptional constellations in which new facts are presented, inter-cantonal double taxation does not generally constitute a ground for revision in respect of direct federal tax. As the appellant did not invoke any other ground for revision, it was not objectionable under federal law for the Cantonal Tax Administration of SocRA to refuse to take the revision request into consideration.
The appellant also invoked the prohibition of inter-cantonal double taxation as a ground for revision in respect of cantonal and municipal taxes. The Federal Supreme Court clarified whether a cantonal tax authority may or must revisit an assessment decision if it contravenes the principles on inter-cantonal double taxation and results in current double taxation. It found that harmonised tax law provides for three instruments by which formally final assessments may be revisited: revision, correction and additional tax. Extraordinary legal remedies against final assessment decisions do not exist in harmonised tax law. The Federal Supreme Court specified that while the principle of legality in tax law favours the annulment or amendment of unlawful rulings, the interest in legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations militates against this. Therefore, there is no room for assuming a federal-law entitlement to revision under Article 127 paragraph 3 Cst.
The Federal Supreme Court further stated that while federal law does not confer an entitlement to the subsequent annulment or amendment of an assessment decision due to inter-cantonal double taxation, it does…