Ah you’re right. In earlier debates it seemed to leave the option open, but now strangely only rental properties are eligible for deduction.
I think they came up with it because fully removing the deduction wouldn’t be allowed by the constitution (it’s in the federal council opinion from 2021), and allowing rental property was the closest to fully removing it that would still be ok wrt the constitution.
Given the Federal finances, it would have probably made sense to keep EmW and at the same time also scrap the interest and other deductions.
1 Like
So what is it, what would you vote? I am still not sure, tending to yes, even if I pay more.
- Yes, no more imputed rental value
- No, everything stays the same
0
voters
Why is that?
Dans son expertise, le professeur Matteotti, constate qu’une option aussi radicale viole
le principe du produit net qui découle de celui de la capacité économique, et s’avère
ainsi contraire à la Constitution.
From https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/67960.pdf
Sorry, my French is a bit rusty. Doesn’t that apply to a tax on debt interest for tax income generating goods in general?
It can in some cases. Should ask the professor 
(There’s a German and Italian version, should be findable on parlement.ch)
Sorry, I’m too stupid. Found it only in French, the search page is not my friend. Found something about flags with that number…
Anyhow, I think the 73% against it in a finance forum speaks for itself.
Aren’t most people not owner? Would make sense (it reduces tax revenue with no benefit to you, and less incentives for landlord to do renovation/improvements).
3 Likes
1 Like
Thank you very much.
As I thought, not letting deduct debt interest of debt that produces taxable income is against the constitution. There is no mentioning of rented real estate, this is for all goods that produce taxable income, including dividend stocks.
So, if that vote goes through somebody could put in a constitutional complaint.
1 Like
Yeah tho good luck fighting tax office and going all the way to federal court (without being reclassified as pro in the process 
)
And iirc things like the taxation of married vs. non-married was declared non constitutional for decades with little change in practice as the fix was to change the law and there was no consensus how to do it (might be fixed soon tho).
1 Like
I would never do that. You pay both sites while the other site has unlimited resources and the judge is biased probably without knowing it because he is paid by your tax money too.
Yet, they successfully fought against the wealth tax in Germany (of all places) based on its unconstitutional nature (I kind of agree with their reasoning, even though I’m supportive of this tax).
I am about to become an owner, but I still think it’s a bad idea, even though it would slightly benefit me to have it removed.
Whilst pretty technical, I find the whole concept of the tax to be good and fair, as it’s about equalising tax treatments between owners occupiers and renters. It’s also a vacancy tax at the same time.
The new laws seem more complex to me (several laws to replace one, complex calculations about which interests can be deducted or not, …), result in lower tax income (at a moment where the federal government isn’t exactly swimming in money), and I am worried about the long term impact on the housing stock of removing deductions for renovations.
Lastly, from the projections I have seen, it will mostly benefit owners of fully paid for RE, aka mostly pretty wealthy retirees. After 13th AVH, I don’t think they need another gift.
I understand the desire to de-risk real-estate by reducing households’ debt, but it feels like it could be accomplished differently. I don’t really know what it would entail, but maybe having to amortise 50% over 20y instead of the current 35% over 15y?
5 Likes
With this prices? No chance, affordability ratio will not be given and is probably a worser situation, than having a mortgage which you cannot deduct (but also not paying imputed rental value.
1 Like
The constitution in Switzerland has rather small power. Federal laws and international treaties are binding instead of the constitution (Art. 190 BV (German), the “official” English wording is watered down). The parliament alone decides to honor the constitution or disregard it. Only other sources of law (e.g. cantonal laws) are subject to checks by the federal constitution.
Sometimes lawyers disagree and paint a nice tower of hierarchical sources of law with the constitution on top. But they will always have to admit that this is not true in reality.
Is a nice overview (in fr)
I really dislike how they always try to sugarcoat and obfuscate (again in that document directed at the Brazilian Judiciary) around the fact that the federal constitution has a subaltern standing in federal legal norms.