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

Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between April 6 and 12, 2026.

Judgment of March 11, 2026 (9C_177/2025): Real estate gains tax (Geneva); Tax deferral; In 2016, the taxpayer sold her 50% co-ownership share in a property; however, no tax was due due to the 0% tax rate, as the period of ownership—calculated from the date of acquisition by her father on March 3, 1972, from whom she had received the property as a gift—amounted to 43 years. In 2018, she acquired a 50% share in a new property as a replacement; in 2020, she sold it. The tax office taxed the profit realized from this sale at a rate of 40% (period of ownership 2018–2020), since the taxpayer had not paid real estate gains tax upon the sale of the first property and therefore no tax deferral applied. In contrast, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling: Art. 12 para. 3 lit. e StHG does not make the tax deferral contingent upon the actual payment of real estate gains tax upon the sale of the first property; the payment of such tax is not explicitly stipulated as a prerequisite in the clear wording of the provision. Furthermore, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that Art. 82 para. 3 LCP (cantonal law), according to which the periods of ownership of both properties must be aggregated in the event of a tax deferral, is compatible with the StHG—which in this case again results in a tax rate of 0%. Dismissal of the appeal by the tax administration.‍
Judgment of March 13, 2026 (9C_567/2025): Direct federal tax and cantonal and municipal taxes (Ticino) 2017–2018; intercantonal double taxation; The taxpayer, who had been domiciled in Graubünden under civil law since July 2014, worked as a member of the executive board of a Ticino-based company; his wife was employed in Ticino, and their daughter attended a private school there; the family resided in Ticino during the week and spent weekends in Graubünden (although the wife and daughter did not move to Graubünden under civil law until July 2017 and returned to Ticino as early as March 2019). The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the taxpayer’s full tax domicile in the Canton of Ticino for 2017 and 2018, as the family’s center of life was, based on the totality of the relevant evidence, most likely located there; the civil law registration of residence is merely one of several factors to be considered. A previous 50/50 agreement between the cantons of Ticino and Graubünden for the tax periods 2015–2016 does not establish a right to reliance for subsequent years, especially since there were no explicit assurances from the Ticino tax authorities and, according to the records, the agreement was limited in time to the period of the wife’s move to Graubünden. Dismissal of the appeal against the Canton of Ticino; upholding of the appeal against the Canton of Graubünden, whose tax assessments for 2017 and 2018 are to be set aside due to the taxpayer’s unlimited tax domicile in the Canton of Ticino, and the taxes levied are to be refunded.‍
Judgment of February 24, 2026 (9C_393/2025): State and Municipal Taxes 2016 (Geneva); Forfeiture of the Right to Tax; The issue was whether the Canton of Geneva had forfeited its right to tax due to a late assessment. In December 2008, the taxpayer moved her place of residence from the Canton of Geneva to the Canton of Schwyz. In January 2018, the Geneva tax administration conducted an on-site audit of the taxpayer and issued an audit report on February 6, 2018, without serving it on the taxpayer. On February 14, 2018, the Canton of Schwyz assessed the taxpayer for the 2016 tax period. On June 21, 2018, the Canton of Geneva informed the Canton of Schwyz of its presumed tax jurisdiction and did not initiate a back-tax and penalty proceeding against the taxpayer until November 26, 2020. The Federal Supreme Court found that the Canton of Geneva had forfeited its right to tax because it (i) had knowledge of the relevant facts by February 6, 2018, at the latest, and (ii) did not assert its tax claim by December 31, 2018. According to case law on forfeiture in postnumerando taxation, the assessment for period “n” must take place in period “n+1,” and the tax claim must be asserted no later than in period “n+2.” The Canton of Schwyz had assessed the taxpayer in good faith on February 14, 2018, without knowing of Geneva’s competing tax claim. The taxpayer’s appeal was upheld.‍
Judgment of March 19, 2026 (9C_157/2025): Direct Federal Tax 2017–2020; The issue in dispute is the location of the spouses’ tax residence. The lower court takes the view that it is located in the Canton of Zurich. It reached this conclusion based on the following evidence: The single-family home in Zurich remained in their possession even after the purchase of the house in the Canton of Zug; only a few pieces of furniture were moved to Zug; the insurance coverage for the house in Zurich is twice as high as for the house in Zug; the landline remained in Zurich; and the majority of purchases and cash withdrawals were made in the greater Zurich area. The evidence cited in the contested judgment does not render the conclusion drawn by the lower court—that the residence in the Canton of Zurich most likely continued to exist—contrary to federal law. This is not altered by the fact that special circumstances existed, in that the affluent appellants were in a position to maintain two households. Dismissal of the appeal filed by the taxpayer spouses A. and B.‍
Judgment of March 24, 2026 (9C_304/2024): Real Estate Transfer Tax 2017 (Bern); On July 5, 2017, A.A. AG, B.A. AG, and the C.A. Pension Fund received independent and perpetual building rights from the Municipality of Bern (capitalized ground rent of approximately CHF 23 million). On August 23, 2017, they entered into a turnkey construction contract with E. AG for approximately CHF 83 million. The Land Registry assessed the real estate transfer tax on the total price (building lease rent + construction price), resulting in a tax amount of approximately CHF 1.9 million. The issue was whether the construction price should be included in the tax base or whether the tax should be assessed solely on the building lease rent. The Federal Supreme Court affirmed the inclusion of the construction price: In the case of building lease agreements that are linked to a construction contract in such a way that a turnkey building is acquired, the tax must be assessed on the total price pursuant to Art. 6a para. 1 HG/BE. The decisive factor is the interdependence of the contracts. In this case, the building application had already been submitted on November 29, 2016—before the building rights were granted. The building rights holders were not free to choose when and how they wished to construct the building. The previous legal practice regarding Art. 6a para. 1 HG/BE (prior to the clarification of the law on May 1, 2022) did not violate the principle of legality. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.

Non-occurrence: