Mario, in 1985 tax played no part in the BVG. How did it come to determine everything today?
In the beginning the BVG was a very simple law, designed for a militia system. Tax aspects played no role whatsoever in 1985. What was new was that the BVG allowed self-employed people to build up tax-privileged pension provision at all. But advisers soon realised that buy-ins were deductible. So the tax authorities responded and defined the first ground rules.
You were on the authority's side back then. How did you decide when there were no rules?
A few principles existed, but there were many gaps. Tax commissioners had to decide to the best of their knowledge and judgement. That is why I felt real relief when clear tax guidelines arrived in 2006. Before that, I had to assess on my own authority whether something was deductible. Of course we consulted colleagues in other cantons, but none of it was binding.
You later moved to the other side. What did that teach you about your own earlier practice?
When I joined PensExpert I made it clear from the outset that I wanted to pass on and promote among advisers the tax rules I had learned at the tax authorities and at the Swiss Tax Conference. After the move I became even more aware how absolutely right and necessary it had been, as a tax authority, to look closely: the market was offering pension solutions of quite extraordinary creativity, for which the term "tax optimisation extremism" is entirely fitting.
In the anniversary book you say the current BVG is no longer of its time. What makes you say that?
The BVG is now forty years old. Back then the structure of society was quite different: the husband was at work, the wife looked after the household. Today we have hybrid working models and more and more people work on their own account. So we find ourselves in an entirely new world.
You say only a single sentence would need deleting. Which one?
It concerns virtual collectivity. A woman who owns a limited company and is its only employee can insure herself with a pension fund; a freelancer without staff cannot. There is no longer any objective justification for this. Yet the law excludes virtual collectivity for the self-employed. In essence, you would only need to delete one sentence from the BVG.
So why does it not happen?
As long as the conversion rate debate continues, a BVG reform stands almost no chance at the ballot box. The remaining reform items would therefore have to be decoupled from the conversion rate and dealt with separately. Nobody disputes the need; it is the packaging that is the problem.
What mistake do advisers keep making in tax planning?
Somewhat less often than before, perhaps, but I still see a certain reluctance to displease. Advisers sometimes show too little backbone against "extreme" client demands and close deals simply for the sake of closing one. In my view it is better to forgo a deal than to conclude a bad one.
What would you like to pass on to Cyrill Habegger and the team?
Keep it up! I find the way you work most gratifying. The right questions are being addressed and the pension advice given is sound, and beyond reproach in tax terms as well. Social competence in dealing with the various players – the supervisory authority, tax administrations, banks, brokers, clients – matters just as much, and here too you are on the right track.
The full tax discussion with Sirgit Meier, André Bänziger, Mario Lazzarini and Max Ledergerber appears in PensExpert's anniversary book.
