Postulate Müller-Altermatt (13.3482): Legal basis for the “tax pillory
Written off 19.06.2015
Submitted text
The Federal Council is instructed to draw up a report on the legal situation and current practice regarding the collection of tax debts from municipalities and cantons. In particular, the following should be presented,
1. what data protection law foundations exist at the federal and cantonal level that regulate the publication of tax liabilities;
2. what differences exist between the cantons with regard to the publication of tax liabilities;
3. what federal law adjustment would be necessary to legalize a “tax pillory.”
4. how a “tax pillory” could be designed so that the personal rights of those denounced are not violated (e.g. by defining the criteria for publication, mandatory procedure, etc.).
Justification
For cantons and municipalities, the collection of taxes is an ever greater challenge. The decreasing payment morale and the strongly developed data protection lead to ever larger arrears of taxes and fees. In response to this unsatisfactory situation, some municipalities have taken measures that go beyond the limits of what is legal. With a “tax pillory”, for example, the municipal authorities of Egerkingen have made themselves liable to prosecution. In fact, the denunciation of citizens who are unwilling to pay is questionable in terms of the protection of their personal rights. Equally questionable, however, is the fact that people can hide behind this protection of personality and cheat the general public out of its payment.
It is therefore advisable to find ways of resolving the conflict of objectives between personal protection and tax evasion. An analysis of the legal bases and possibilities as well as the applied practice should open up these paths.
<
h1>Statement of the Federal Council
<
h1>
The postulant asks the Federal Council for a report on the publication of tax debts owed by cantons and municipalities, with a particular focus on exploring the possibility of introducing a “tax pranger” for defaulting tax debtors.
According to the applicable federal and cantonal tax legislation, all persons entrusted with the enforcement of tax laws are obliged to maintain secrecy about the findings made in the process and about the circumstances of the taxpayers (cf. Art. 110 of the Federal Law of 14 December 1990 on Direct Federal Tax, DBG; SR 642.11). This is referred to as the preservation of tax secrecy. The introduction of the requested “tax pranger” would contradict this principle.
The Confederation, the cantons and the communes must comply with the provisions of the Federal Act of 11 April 1889 on Debt Collection and Bankruptcy (SchKG; SR 281.1) for the collection of taxes due to them. The legislator has always refrained from providing the Treasury with special means for the collection of its public-law claims that are not available to creditors of private-law claims. It is true that the cantons and municipalities encounter great difficulties with a number of tax debtors when they want to collect outstanding tax debts. Private creditors, however, may encounter similar difficulties in collecting their claims. For reasons of equal treatment of all creditors, it would therefore be problematic to introduce a “tax pillory” for the benefit of the treasury as envisaged by the postulant.
The postulant himself points out that the introduction of the “tax pranger” would result in problems with personal privacy and data protection. It would hardly be possible to protect the personal rights of those affected by the introduction of the “tax pranger”. After all, the “tax pranger” is intended to encourage debtors to pay their tax arrears by publicly naming them. The violation of their personal rights would thus be intentional or at least accepted.
In summary, the introduction of the “tax pranger” proves to be incompatible with the applicable legal order, which is why the preparation of the report requested by the postulant should be dispensed with.