Facts
The spouses (taxpayers) applied on 17 March 2019 to the Tax Office [U.] /TG for remission of the cantonal and municipal taxes of the Canton of Thurgau for the tax periods 2016 and 2017 in the amount of CHF 3'098.80. The local tax office rejected the application on 6 May 2019.
The taxpayers appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission of the Canton of Thurgau, which dismissed the appeal with decision STRE.2019.86 of 30 October 2019. Based on § 194 para. 1 StA/TG, tax remission may be granted in case of impossibility or great hardship of payment; hardship exists if the amount is disproportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay, in particular if the tax debt cannot be settled within a foreseeable period despite a lifestyle restricted to the subsistence minimum (§ 50b para. 1 StO/TG).
The lower instance found that the taxpayers had monthly income of CHF 4'530.-- (including supplementary benefits to the AHV and FluPO). The subsistence requirement under Art. 93 DEBA amounted to CHF 4'170.--. The monthly surplus of CHF 360.-- allowed settlement within approximately nine months. According to practice, only a period of 14 months would constitute a financial emergency, so no hardship existed.
By submission of 18 November 2019, the taxpayers lodged an appeal with the Federal Supreme Court and requested, in substance, the annulment of the decision and the granting of tax remission. They referred to small AHV pensions, health problems with hospital stays, their modest lifestyle, and the wish to avoid new debts.
The Division President, acting as instruction judge, refrained from instructional measures.
Considerations
Under Art. 83 lit. m FSCA, the appeal in public law matters is excluded in the area of tax remission questions. What remains to be examined is the subsidiary constitutional complaint (Art. 113 ff. FSCA), by which only the violation of constitutional individual rights may be raised (Art. 116 FSCA). The qualified duty to raise and substantiate objections applies (Art. 117 in conjunction with Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA); purely appellatory criticism is insufficient.
Under § 194 para. 1 StA/TG, tax remission 'may' be granted. As in other cantons with similar wording, this does not create a legal entitlement to deferral or remission. The refusal of remission therefore does not affect the taxpayers in legally protected interests (Art. 115 lit. b FSCA), which is why they lack standing to raise substantive objections regarding the remission question.
Where no legally protected substantive interest exists, only objections that amount to a formal denial of justice and relate to participation in the proceedings and the exercise of party rights may be raised ('Star practice'). By contrast, submissions that amount to a substantive review, such as incomplete reasoning or anticipated assessment of evidence, are…