Confiscatory nature of the wealth tax/ publication of party names («rubrum»)

Judgment 9C_654/2023 from the Federal Supreme Court of 31 October 2023 raises two points that warrant our attention:

The judges were required to rule on the concept of the confiscatory nature of taxation. Indeed, although certain cantons have introduced legal provisions designed to mitigate the confiscatory nature of taxation («tax shield»), the fact remains that, notwithstanding the application of these provisions, taxation remains confiscatory in the light of constitutional guarantees. To explore these concepts in greater depth, I recommend reading Floran Ponce’s article «Le bouclier fiscal» in this summer’s issue of the Revue fiscale (pp. 530 ff.).

Red

According to Art. 59 para. 3 LTF and Art. 60 of the Ordinance of the Federal Supreme Court, judgments of the Federal Supreme Court are posted, along with the names of the parties, for 30 days at the seat of the Federal Supreme Court; cases where the law requires the anonymisation of the parties are reserved. A particularly serious infringement of personal rights may lead to anonymisation. Requesting anonymisation necessitates the justification and substantiation of this request. Media coverage of a case does not take precedence over the principle of public pronouncement of the judgment.

The judgment is in French (Geneva case).

TF, judgment 9C_654/2022, of 31 October 2023