Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
784.401 RTVVORTV CH

Art. 67b Radio- und Fernsehverordnung (RTVV) - Höhe der Abgabe

RTVV; 4. Titel: Abgabe für Radio und Fernsehen; 2. Kapitel: Unternehmensabgabe
Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (112 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 67b RTVV · Höhe der Abgabe

Der jährliche Mindestumsatz für die Abgabepflicht eines Unternehmens beträgt 500 000 Franken.

Die jährliche Abgabe eines Unternehmens beträgt je Umsatzstufe pro Jahr:Umsatz in FrankenAbgabe in Franken a. Stufe 1 [tab] 500 000 bis 749 999 [tab] 160 b. Stufe 2 [tab] 750 000 bis 1 199 999 [tab] 235 c. Stufe 3 [tab] 1 200 000 bis 1 699 999 [tab] 325 d. Stufe 4 [tab] 1 700 000 bis 2 499 999 [tab] 460 e. Stufe 5 [tab] 2 500 000 bis 3 599 999 [tab] 645 f. Stufe 6 [tab] 3 600 000 bis 5 099 999 [tab] 905 g. Stufe 7 [tab] 5 100 000 bis 7 299 999 [tab] 1 270 h. Stufe 8 [tab] 7 300 000 bis 10 399 999 [tab] 1 785 i. Stufe 9 [tab] 10 400 000 bis 14 999 999 [tab] 2 505 j. Stufe 10 [tab] 15 000 000 bis 22 999 999 [tab] 3 315 k. Stufe 11 [tab] 23 000 000 bis 32 999 999 [tab] 4 935 l. Stufe 12 [tab] 33 000 000 bis 49 999 999 [tab] 6 925 m. Stufe 13 [tab] 50 000 000 bis 89 999 999 [tab] 9 725 n. Stufe 14 [tab] 90 000 000 bis 179 999 999 [tab] 13 665 o. Stufe 15 [tab] 180 000 000 bis 399 999 999 [tab] 19 170 p. Stufe 16 [tab] 400 000 000 bis 699 999 999 [tab] 26 915 q. Stufe 17 [tab] 700 000 000 bis 999 999 999 [tab] 37 790 r. Stufe 18 [tab] 1 000 000 000 und mehr [tab] 49 925.

← Art. 67a RTVV Radio- und Fernsehverordnung (RTVV) - Angebote von geringer publizistischer Tragweite Art. 67c RTVV →

Fragen Sie sich, wie diese Gesetzesbestimmung auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Erlass zusammen mit Rechtsprechung, Kommentaren und verwandten Gesetzesbestimmungen in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (10)

A-628/2023 (Art. 70 Abs. 1 RTVG i.V.m. Art. 67b Abs. 1 RTVV)
Company Levy for Broadcasting Upheld
Cited as the legal basis for the obligation to pay the company levy for radio and television, and thus for rejecting the appeal.
A-2323/2023 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Company Challenges Radio and Television License Fee Assessment
Defines the specific tariff categories and corresponding levy amounts based on company turnover.
A-2570/2022 (Art. 67b al. 2 ORTV)
Company Challenges Radio and Television License Fee for Violating Fiscal Legality and Equality
The court partially admitted the appeal because this provision was found to be unconstitutional, although it was ordered to continue to be applied for reasons of proportionality and legal certainty.
A-4741/2021 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Radio and Television Company Fee Violates Equal Treatment Principle
Declared unconstitutional in the present application cases.
A-1138/2021 (Art. 67b Abs. 1 RTVV)
Entrepreneur's Radio/TV License Fee Not Waived Despite COVID-19 Closure
This provision defines small companies with a turnover below Fr. 500,000 as exempt from the fee.
A-1138/2021 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Entrepreneur's Radio/TV License Fee Not Waived Despite COVID-19 Closure
This provision establishes the tiered fee structure based on company turnover, which was used to determine the specific amount owed.
A-3116/2022 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Broadcasting Levy Upheld Despite Misinformation Claims
Cited as the provision that determines the tariffs for the company levy, and its current, refined version is deemed legally sound.
A-3116/2022 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV (in the version effective since January 1, 2021))
Broadcasting Levy Upheld Despite Misinformation Claims
The court confirmed the validity of this provision as it now includes 18 tariff levels, addressing previous concerns about overly broad categories.
A-6177/2020 (Art. 67b cpv. 1 ORTV)
Broadcasting Fee upheld for VAT-registered businesses above turnover threshold.
It establishes that the minimum annual turnover for enterprises to be liable for the fee is CHF 500,000.
A-1378/2019 (Art. 67b Abs. 2 RTVV)
Broadcasting Fee Disproportionate Due to Tiered Structure
The court found this provision to be unconstitutional regarding the principle of equal treatment in the specific application to the appellant, but did not refuse its application due to reasons of legal certainty and ongoing financing.