Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (CW –2026)

Overview of tax law decisions by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between March 23 and 29, 2026:

Judgment of February 26, 2026 (9C_578/2025, 9C_579/2025): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2021 (Basel-Landschaft); The taxpayer lost his job in 2021 and, as part of an extended social plan, received a support payment from the hardship fund, which he used to make a pension purchase into his pension fund. This purchase was intended to secure his retirement pension. In the same year, however, he received two lump-sum payments from the pension fund. The subject of the dispute was the question of whether this pension purchase was deductible. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the three-year waiting period is an objective time limit: Any lump-sum payments received within this period preclude the deductibility of contributions. A direct link between the purchase and the subsequent lump-sum payment is not required. An exception may only be considered if the purchase specifically serves to finance a temporary bridging pension, which constitutes an independent instrument under pension law and actuarial principles. However, this was not the case here. Furthermore, the taxpayer could not rely on information provided by the legal department, as there was no subsequent disadvantageous disposition of assets and essential factual elements had not been fully disclosed. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Judgment of March 5, 2026 (9C_371/2025): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2013–2015 (Geneva); The dispute concerned the fine imposed on the appellant for the completed evasion of income and wealth taxes. The tax evasion was based on monetary benefits from companies controlled by the appellant, as well as undeclared bank deposits and equity interests. The tax authorities fined both the company and the appellant (for incitement and aiding and abetting). These fines were upheld by the Cantonal Court. Before the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant asserted a violation of the ne bis in idem principle and complained that the range of fines imposed was too high. Citing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that there was no violation of the ne bis in idem principle, since the fine for personal tax evasion does not specifically concern the same subject matter as the company’s tax evasion. With regard to the amount of the evasion fine, the appellant was unable to demonstrate arbitrariness. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Judgment of February 27, 2026 (9C_620/2025): Bern Real Estate Gains Tax (2020); The issue in this case is the calculation of the partial tax deferral due to reinvestment for real estate gains tax purposes. In its calculation, the lower court wrongly deviated from the absolute method, although it admitted this error in the response to the appeal. The appeal by the tax administration is upheld.
Judgment of March 3, 2026 (9C_314/2025): Water Fees 2017–2021 (Leuzigen/BE); The issue at hand is whether the heirs of the former tenant are required to pay the water and sewerage fees. The lower court concluded that the heirs are liable for the charges, even if the high water consumption resulted from a leak that went undetected for several months. The Federal Supreme Court upheld this view. The heirs’ appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of February 23, 2026 (9C_297/2025 and 9C_298/2025): Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2016 (Geneva); The dispute concerns the tax treatment of the gain from the sale of parcel X belonging to the deceased A. and his brother. In this context, the main question is whether the lower court correctly confirmed that this parcel was no longer an agricultural property within the meaning of Art. 18 para. 4 DBG. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that agricultural use ceased in September 2015, namely prior to the transfer of ownership, which took place on December 22, 2015, and February 1, 2026. It thus upheld the lower court’s view that the parcel is no longer an agricultural property. Dismissal of the appeal by the heirs of the late A.
Judgment of February 24, 2026 (9C_606/2025) – scheduled for publication: Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2010–2013 (Geneva); The issue in dispute is whether the deduction of the interest expense claimed by the taxpayer, A. AG, in connection with the loan was rightly denied. A. AG was involved in a leveraged buyout followed by a merger, which led to a debt push-down. The majority of the loan was used to finance the acquisition of the target company. As a result of the merger, the debt was transferred to the operating company. The Federal Supreme Court took the position that this financing did not serve the business purpose of the operating company, which is why the loan lacks commercial justification and the interest on the debt is therefore not tax-deductible. Dismissal of the appeal by A. AG and partial granting of the appeal regarding the statute of limitations for the 2010 tax period.
Judgment of March 5, 2026 (9C_387/2025): Value-Added Tax 2016–2020; In this case, the issue was whether the items loaned to restaurants (outdoor serving stations, refrigerators, outdoor lighting, and menu display cases) qualified as independent, VAT-liable (counter)performance for their purchase or serving obligations. The appellant argued that its loans to the restaurants constituted neither a fee nor consideration for the delivery rights it received from them. The FTA, however, affirmed that an exchange of services existed due to an economic link, since the loans were granted only in exchange for corresponding delivery rights, a position that was also upheld by the Federal Administrative Court. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and held that the loans qualify as an independent consideration, subject to value-added tax, provided by the appellant in exchange for the supply rights received from the restaurants. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of February 17, 2026 (9C_647/2025): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2010–2015 (Geneva). At issue were the additional taxes levied on the appellants (a married couple) and the fine imposed on them for attempted tax evasion (factor 1.5, reduced by one-third to factor 1 due to the attempted nature of the offense). Based on the facts established by the lower court, the husband (A) failed to declare income from a foundation (B) closely associated with him as income from self-employment. In addition, A received hidden monetary benefits from a company (C) in which he held a stake, based in a tax haven but with a permanent establishment in Geneva. Finally, a company (D) issued bonus shares to Foundation B. With regard to the 2010 tax period, the Federal Supreme Court (BGer) finds that the statute of limitations for assessment has expired. However, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has not expired. In cases of attempted tax evasion, this begins only when the tax assessment becomes final; that is, with the present judgment. The statute of limitations for completed tax evasion does not constitute a limit on the statute of limitations for attempted tax evasion. Furthermore, it considers the various grounds of appeal raised by the appellants to be unfounded. Partial granting of the taxpayers’ appeal.
Judgment of February 17, 2026 (9C_648/2025): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2011 (Geneva). At issue were the additional taxes levied on the appellant (a stock corporation based in Geneva, A AG) and a fine for intentional, completed tax evasion (factor 1.25). Based on the facts established by the lower court, the corporation acquired various shares in offshore companies worth approximately CHF 16 million from an individual free of charge. The lower courts classified this transaction as extraordinary income. The Federal Supreme Court considers the appellant’s various objections to be unfounded. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Judgment of February 17, 2026 (9C_649/2025): Direct Federal Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2010–2014 (Geneva). At issue were the additional taxes levied on the appellant (A Inc.) and a fine for attempted tax evasion (factor 1.5, reduced by one-third to factor 1 due to the attempted nature of the offense). Based on the facts established by the lower court, while A Inc. was indeed headquartered in a tax haven, it maintained a permanent establishment in Geneva in the office of a shareholder, board member, and managing director. The profit of this permanent establishment was estimated at the discretion of the court because A Inc. did not submit conclusive accounting records. The expenses claimed by A Inc. were not allowed as deductions due to lack of evidence. With regard to the 2010 tax period, the Federal Supreme Court (BGer) determined that the statute of limitations for assessment had expired. However, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had not expired. In cases of attempted tax evasion, this begins only when the tax assessment becomes final; that is, with the present judgment. The statute of limitations for completed tax evasion does not constitute a limitation on the statute of limitations for attempted tax evasion. Furthermore, the court considers the appellant’s various objections to be unfounded. Partial granting of the taxpayer’s appeal.