1. Facts
Foundation Z is a recognized public-benefit organization, exempt from direct taxes, and has its headquarters in Geneva.
On March 4, 2024, it acquired a real estate company, X SA, from a Geneva resident for CHF 10 million. The market value of the property is CHF 12 million, its purchase price by the real estate company was CHF 8 million, and its book value is CHF 7 million (due to depreciation of CHF 1 million, which is tax-deductible).
On June 5, 2024, the Foundation assumes the assets and liabilities of the real estate company through a transfer of assets, and the company is struck from the commercial register.
Questions
- What were the tax consequences for direct taxes and the IBGI prior to the Federal Supreme Court’s ruling of June 10, 2024 (9C_393/2023)?
- What are the likely tax consequences for direct taxes and the IBGI following the aforementioned ruling?
1. Facts
On January 1, 2024, a foreign private equity fund established a Swiss acquisition company (Akiko) with equity capital of CHF 20 million and a shareholder loan of CHF 40 million (at a rate of 5.5%). Akiko obtained additional bank financing of CHF 40 million (at a rate of 5%). The terms of the loans are identical, and neither is secured by any collateral.
Akiko acquires the entire share capital of Immo SA on March 30, 2024. Immo SA is a real estate company whose sole asset is a building in the canton of Geneva. Its equity is CHF 10 million. On January 1, 2025, Akiko merges with Immo SA.
Questions
- What are the tax consequences with regard to withholding tax?
1. Facts
Company X SA is headquartered in Geneva. It owns real estate in the cantons of Geneva and Vaud.
Company X SA obtains a loan from a Zurich bank and pledges its real estate as collateral.
Question
- What is the situation from a direct tax perspective for Company X SA and for the bank?
Company X SA is headquartered in Geneva. It owns real estate in the cantons of Geneva and Vaud.
Company X SA obtains a loan from a foreign bank, resident in a country that has a DTA with Switzerland. Company X SA pledges its real estate as collateral.
Question
- What is the situation from a direct tax perspective for Company X SA and for the bank?
Company X SA has its headquarters in Geneva. It owns real estate in the cantons of Geneva and Vaud.
Company X SA obtains a loan from a foreign bank, resident in a country that has a DTA with Switzerland, which has a permanent establishment in Geneva. Company X SA pledges its real estate as collateral. The receivables are recorded in the books of the Geneva permanent establishment.
Question
- What is the situation from a direct tax perspective for Company X SA and for the bank?
Company X Ltd is headquartered in Singapore. It owns real estate in the cantons of Geneva and Vaud.
Company X Ltd obtains a loan from a foreign bank that is a resident of a country with a DTA with Switzerland. Company X Ltd pledges its real estate as collateral.
Question
- What is the situation from a direct tax perspective for Company X SA and for the bank?
Company X Ltd is headquartered in Singapore. It owns real estate in the cantons of Geneva and Vaud.
Company X Ltd obtains a loan from a foreign bank, resident in a country that has a DTA with Switzerland, which has a permanent establishment in Geneva. Company X SA pledges its real estate as collateral. The receivables are recorded in the books of the Geneva permanent establishment.
Question
- What is the situation from a direct tax perspective for Company X Ltd and for the bank?
1. Facts
Mr. X is a tax resident of Geneva. He was active in the real estate sector. His wife worked as a veterinarian. The couple has been retired for five years.
Mr. X owns, jointly with his wife, shares in four real estate companies that they acquired more than 15 years ago, entirely with their own funds. The companies own rental properties. The shares in question are declared as part of their private assets and taxed as such. In addition, the couple owns a rental property acquired 12 years ago using borrowed funds amounting to 50% of the purchase price. It has also always been declared as an asset belonging to their private assets. These assets have never appeared in Mr. X’s accounting records.
Following the direct purchase of the property (specifically 7 years ago) and due to the increase in the property’s market value (+10%), the couple was able to secure a personal bank loan to finance private projects unrelated to real estate. The initial loan and the additional loan together represent 70% of the purchase price and 63% of the market value of the property at the time the additional financing was granted.
The couple is now considering selling the property they own directly.
Specific questions regarding the private/commercial classification
- How should the case law indicator of the use of borrowed funds be assessed in this case when analyzing the classification of private versus commercial assets?
- Can Ms. X’s situation be treated separately from Mr. X’s?