ATA/530/1995•Tourism tax liability of a wealth manager upheld
ATA/530/1995Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberOct 10, 1995Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The court held that a wealth manager may be subjected to the tourism encouragement tax because the business benefits from Geneva’s international financial reputation and the resulting influx of potential clients. It further rejected the argument that the tourism regulations treated different wealth managers unequally. The challenge was therefore dismissed and the tax liability remained in force.
RTour art. 26 al. 2; tourism encouragement tax liability of a wealth manager; economic benefit from the international reputation of the financial centre suffices to justify assujettissement. A wealth manager may be treated as benefiting from business tourism where the clientele base expands through the attractiveness of the place as a financial hub. The equal-treatment principle is not violated merely because the regulation applies to wealth managers in general, provided the differentiation is objective and related to the tax’s purpose; consid. 2-4.
Descripteurs
TAXE D'ENCOURAGEMENT AU TOURISME; GERANT DE FORTUNE; ASSUJETTISSEMENT(IMPOT); FIN
Normes
RTour.26 al.2
Résumé
Le gérant de fortune bénéficie du tourisme d'affaires car le nombre des clients potentiels augmente en fonction de la réputation de la place financière internationale de Genève. Pas d'inégalité de traitement dans le RLTour entre les différents gérants de fortune.
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether a wealth manager is liable for the tourism encouragement tax under RTour art. 26(2).
Yes. The court considered that a wealth manager benefits from business tourism because the pool of potential clients increases with the reputation of Geneva as an international financial center.
The economic advantage linked to the place’s international attractiveness justified inclusion within the tax’s scope.
Whether the tourism regulations create unequal treatment between different wealth managers.
No. The court found no unconstitutional unequal treatment among the various wealth managers covered by the regime.
The distinction drawn by the regulations was not arbitrary and was consistent with the purpose of financing tourism promotion.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.