Non-entry into the appeal against the taxation of the imputed rental value due to insufficient reasoning and absence of an appealable decision

Facts

Parties and instances: The taxpayer (appellant), with tax domicile in [U.] /SH, challenges the Government Council of the Canton of Schaffhausen (respondent). The prior instance is the Higher Court (Obergericht) of the Canton of Schaffhausen.

Subject matter: Judicial review of norms concerning the taxation of the imputed rental value (owner-occupied residential property).

Preliminary proceedings: On 30 November 2017, the taxpayer filed with the Higher Court a submission designated as 'administrative court appeal against the Government Council of the Canton of Schaffhausen', by which he complained of the unlawful taxation of owner-occupied residential property.

Prior instance decision: By single-judge order 61/2017/1 of 27 August 2019, the Higher Court did not enter into the matter. It held that there was no appealable decision, so the submission could not be treated as an administrative court appeal. It was treated as a request for judicial review of norms under Art. 51 ff. VRG/SH, which may be filed at any time. Cantonal laws (Art. 46 JG/SH) are excluded from judicial review of norms, so the provisions on the imputed rental value in the StA/SH could not be reviewed. The decree of 18 December 1998 on the determination of the imputed rental value was reviewable, but the taxpayer had not shown which provision he contested and on what grounds. The Government Council's submission regarding the decree could not be reviewed; the transitional provision in § 6 of the decree was no longer in force, so there was no legal interest in protection. Furthermore, the Higher Court, in settled case law, proceeds from the lawfulness of the provisions governing the assessment of the imputed rental value.

Proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court: By submission of 14 September 2019, the taxpayer filed a 'constitutional law appeal'. He essentially requested a declaration that the decree of 18 December 1998 violates superior law, in particular Art. 18quater of the former Tax Act of 17 December 1956. Under the heading 'Compensation', he demanded CHF 82'877.-- from the Canton of Schaffhausen.

Conduct of proceedings: The presiding judge of the division, acting as instructing judge, dispensed with investigative measures and with a second exchange of written submissions. Since the appeal manifestly contained no sufficient reasoning, the matter was decided by a single judge in simplified proceedings under Art. 108 para. 1 lit. b FSCA.

Considerations

Subject matter of the dispute: The subject matter of the dispute before the Federal Supreme Court may be narrowed compared with the prior proceedings, but it may not be extended or changed (Art. 99 para. 2 FSCA). The only question to be examined is therefore whether the prior instance's non-entry was consistent with federal law or constitutionally tenable. The material compatibility of the decree with superior law was not to be examined, since the prior instance did not enter into the matter.

Cantonal procedural law and the obligation to raise complaints: The non-entry was based on cantonal procedural law. This is not constitutionally objectionable, since no applicable federal law regarding the admissibility question is apparent. The Federal Supreme Court examines alleged violations of constitutional individual rights and of purely cantonal law only if such a complaint is raised in the appeal and adequately substantiated (qualified obligation to raise and substantiate complaints under Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). Purely appellatory criticism is insufficient.

Insufficient engagement with the decision on admissibility: The taxpayer set out the legal situation…