Took only 7.5 years to find that person. Sorry that it was you.
1 Like
I did this as well so far always keeping it in mind that I may be classified as a commercial investor 
so its not that dramatic.. and I tried not to realize gains much over these years exactly because of this reason..
hahaha 
its ok.. I proactively asked the tax office myself.. with the currenttrend going to these type of investments and more interest between people to invest, I am sure you will see this classification more and more from the tax offices.. otherwise it would be a too easy game to play 
Sorry, we have to take away your medal if you went and waved a big red flag in front of the tax authorities. 
4 Likes
Don’t they always say around here “If ya gotta ask, you’re not it”?
1 Like
Its ok I don’t need a medal i knew they can always look back and charge you with tax still after 10yrs.. for my investment, I need to be sure in which classification am I, so I can adopt my investment strategies to it.. so I proactively sent them my report and asked them for assessment and now I know where am I and not worried anymore.. I do some other actions from now on
1 Like
I’m not familiar with your Canton but it sounds like you asked for it. I understand that you want upfront certainty on your tax treatment but that can’t be done without raising the alarm bell. And that’s normal, it’s called a tax ruling.
My preferred approach is always at first present the tax office with the minimum information they require. No proactive actions unless your are 100% sure that will ask about it. You’ll have to be ready to answer any questions if they come. The downside is that you’ll have extra uncertainty for up to 2-3 years.
3 Likes
Well it’s not clear that he actually ask for a binding tax ruling. The worst case is if he just asked for written confirmation and got some low level grunt to respond and the written response can’t be relied on in future. e.g. if he starts losing money or having costs he wants to deduct, can the tax authority go back on what they wrote in the written response.
2 Likes
I still think even in that case it’s unusual, other folks asked for it in the thread (and many people share all their trades/positions).
(I wouldn’t say the reason is that they asked upfront, either the situation is extreme – in terms of profit/consistency, field of employment – or there’s an overzealous tax officer or Canton Bern just does it differently. The canton is likely to lose out in the end given tax loss harvesting strategy and the fact that the big winners often have low sharpe strategy)
1 Like
I think it is clear:
If the answer from the tax authorities is called a binding or non-binding ruling is semantics, it does not change the result.
2 Likes
Quite a conclusion from one anecdote
1 Like
From google:
In Switzerland, the primary difference between a binding tax ruling (Steuervorbescheid) and written confirmation (often called Auskunft or Bestätigung) lies in the legal certainty, scope, and strictness of the requirements for binding effects under the principle of good faith (Art. 5 para. 3 and Art. 9 Federal Constitution). [1]
A binding tax ruling is a negotiated, formal, and specific agreement on the tax treatment of a future, complex transaction based on full disclosure. A written confirmation is generally a more straightforward response to an inquiry about current practice or the interpretation of a law, which may not offer the same high level of legal protection. [1, 2]
Key Differences Summary
Feature [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Binding Tax Ruling (Steuervorbescheid) Written Confirmation (Auskunft) Purpose Secure legal certainty for planned, complex transactions. Confirm tax treatment of current or standard situations. Binding Nature Highly binding on the tax authority based on good faith. Less strictly binding; acts as a “best estimate” or information. Facts Disclosure Requires full, detailed, and accurate disclosure of all facts. Usually based on simpler, less detailed inquiries. Negotiation Yes, it is a negotiation process. No, usually a unilateral statement of view. Process Formalized, takes weeks to months. Informal/quicker (e.g., email or letter). Legal Basis Constitutional principle of good faith (Art. 9 BV). General information obligation.
- Binding Tax Ruling (Steuervorbescheid)
A tax ruling is an advance position taken by tax authorities on a specific, planned, and non-executed transaction. [1, 2]
- Binding Conditions: For a ruling to be binding, the facts must be disclosed completely, truthfully, and accurately. The tax authority must be competent, and the taxpayer must have acted in good faith, having no reason to doubt the accuracy of the ruling.
- Binding Effect: It is binding on both the taxpayer and the tax authority. The tax authorities cannot change their mind during the final tax assessment if the actual facts match the ruling.
- Scope: Used for complex matters like restructurings, high-value transactions, or employee participation plans. [1, 2, 3, 4]
- Written Confirmation (Auskunft / Information Letter)
A written confirmation is an informational response to a query about how the tax authorities interpret a specific law or handle a specific scenario. [1, 2]
- Binding Nature: While generally treated with trust, a standard “written confirmation” may not possess the same constitutional protection as a formal “ruling” if the tax authorities later argue it was only a preliminary or incomplete view.
- Limitation: It is generally not binding if the facts were incomplete, or if the legal situation has changed significantly by the time the tax is assessed. [, 2]
Why Tax Rulings are Preferred
In Switzerland, tax rulings are used to create “legal certainty” (Rechtssicherheit), providing a structured way to avoid tax controversies before they occur. While not explicitly regulated by law, they are widely recognized and encouraged for complex matters, whereas a simple written confirmation might leave room for interpretation by tax officers at the time of final assessment. [1, 2, 3, 5]
Note: As of 2018, Switzerland automatically exchanges information on certain advanced tax rulings with other tax authorities if there is a risk of base erosion or profit sharing. [1]
1 Like
ok. Your and my argument are on different levels of this discussion. I’m happy to leave it at that.
2 Likes
You mean the volatility part? I said “often”. And still, I assume OP made a lot at least at the level of a single stock bet like NVDA/TSLA in the past, if you can generate returns in the triple digit percent with low volatility you can create the next renaissance 
(high double digit percent returns).
1 Like
-
Never ever give more information than is required to the tax authorities or any office.
-
Never ever say you are classed as a pro investor here. You will be bombarded with the same repetitive nonsense…
4 Likes
Care to elaborate? The nonsense seemed rather tame, and @Go2c 's contribution is valuable to this community.
5 Likes
87 posts were split to a new topic: Thinking about moving to Switzerland and live from passive income
Isn’t it an additional 1% (assuming 100% of the sale is capital gains). If you have 20k income from dividends, you can make 10k capital gains, to have it be 50% of the net income as per the rule
This assuming that all net income is only the dividends of course, so 20k will be the value that’s the Einkommen in the provisional tax bill.
It’s nice to get a reply 8 years later 
Mind you, I still have no idea how the tax authority handles it, but the impression is that they’re really after active traders, and not buy-and-hold investors.
if 20k of your income comes from dividends and 10k from capital gains, then your income is 30k, and 10/30 is 33%.
4 Likes
That’s the result of this being 1 giant thread with over 400 replies and opening it as a new topic would get merged into this anyway