The idea has already failed twice at the ballot box and several times in parliament. Now the Council of States wants to abolish the controversial imputed rental value again. It approved a corresponding bill as the first Council by 20 votes to 17 with 2 abstentions.

Now the bill goes to the National Council or, before that, to the National Council Commission. If the two councils agree, however, a referendum can still be initiated (50,000 signatures within 100 days). If the referendum is successful, the bill will be put to the people. This means that either way it will be some time before the imputed rental value is abolished, if ever.

What exactly is it about? The idea of imputed rental value is that the owners of an owner-occupied property (single-family house, condominium) have to pay tax on an estimated rental income as income (taxable income from immovable property) that would result from renting it out to a third party.

Own use creates a monetary benefit (saving on rent). Capital and management costs can be deducted for this. It is therefore a question of equal tax treatment.

But for many homeowners, the purpose of taxing what is perceived as “fictitious” income is difficult to understand, if at all. They see themselves as disadvantaged. Criticism comes especially from pensioners, which is understandable. The balance between the imputed rental value and the deductions is still considerable and counts as income.

Moreover, there is no incentive to amortise, which explains the high level of private debt (mortgage world champion). Incidentally, Switzerland is the only country in Europe that taxes imputed rental value as income.

By the tax authorities. This has to take various principles into account when calculating the tax (e.g. building insurance value, residential location, area, year of construction, etc.).

The legal basis for the imputed rental value is found in the Federal Law on Direct Federal Tax (DBG). Article 21 reads: “Taxable is the income from immovable property, in particular: b) the rental value of real estate or parts of real estate which are available to the taxpayer for his own use on the basis of ownership or a gratuitous right of use”.

In addition, the cantons lay down further provisions in their own tax laws. For example, in the tax law of the Canton of Zurich, the imputed rental value is to be set at a maximum of 70 per cent of the market value in order to promote the formation of property and self-provision. Furthermore, the Zurich tax law states that the quality characteristics of the properties, which would also significantly influence the rent in the case of letting, are to be taken into account accordingly.

Nun, das letzte Wort ist wie gesagt noch nicht gesprochen. So far, at least, no change in the system has been found that can command a majority. We will see.