Overview of tax law decisions by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between March 16 and 22, 2026:
- Judgment of February 27, 2026 (9C_274/2024): Value-Added Tax (2017–2019); The issue in this case was whether services provided under managed care contracts qualify as medical treatments exempt from value-added tax. The appellant argued that the services in question were an integral part of medical treatment and therefore fell under the tax exemption provided for in Art. 21(2)(3) of the Value Added Tax Act (VATA). The Federal Tax Administration (FTA), on the other hand, took the position that these were independent, flat-rate coordination services with no direct connection to specific medical treatments. The Federal Supreme Court upheld this view, reasoning that the required direct link between the service and individual treatment was lacking, and that the subsequent introduction of Art. 21 para. 2 no. 3bis of the VAT Act specifically demonstrated that such services were not exempt from tax during the relevant period. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
- Judgment of February 27, 2026 (9C_328/2025): Direct federal tax and cantonal taxes for 2018 (Ticino); intercantonal double taxation; The issue was whether the appellant had transferred his tax residence for the 2018 tax period from the canton of Ticino to the canton of Graubünden by deregistering from the Ticino population registry on December 16, 2018. The Ticino tax administration continued to assume unlimited tax liability in the Canton of Ticino for 2018, specifically because the appellant’s partner and their daughter—with plans for family reunification in mid-2019—were still residing in Ticino in a property owned by the appellant. The Federal Supreme Court upheld this view. While it noted that certain pieces of evidence considered by the lower court pertained to periods outside the period at issue and were therefore not relevant, this did not alter the overall assessment that the center of life remained in the Canton of Ticino in 2018. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
- Judgment of February 25, 2026 (9C_380/2025): State and Municipal Taxes 2019 (Zurich); The dispute concerns the valuation of a stock corporation for property tax purposes. One of the taxpayers has been the sole shareholder of the company since 2018. To determine the market value of the company, the tax authority initially applied the practical method (double weighting of the income value, single weighting of the net asset value). After the taxpayers filed an objection, the authority corrected the assessment and, due to the company’s personal nature, applied only a single weighting to the income value. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the taxpayers were unable to demonstrate to what extent the lower court had determined the facts arbitrarily. In particular, the company was no more person-specific than that of a lawyer or an architect, and the significant fluctuations in profits were also sufficiently taken into account by the method applied. Dismissal of the taxpayers’ appeal.
- Judgment of March 2, 2026 (9C_9/2026): Value-Added Tax 2017–2020; The taxpayer, A. AG, pays value-added tax using the effective method and the agreed remuneration. Following an audit by the FTA of the tax periods 2017–2020, the FTA determined an additional assessment totaling CHF 102,858 in the assessment notice. The reasons for this included discrepancies in turnover between the VAT returns and the commercial balance sheet. These discrepancies are based not only on missing turnover reconciliations (formal deficiencies) but also on inaccurate turnover figures (substantive deficiencies). The FTA rightly filled these substantive gaps in the VAT return by referring to the commercial balance sheet. The taxpayer is unable to demonstrate how this could be arbitrary. She must accept the figures in the commercial balance sheet, even if errors may have occurred during the bookkeeping process. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
