Overview of tax law decisions by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between May 4 and May 10, 2026:
- Judgment of April 2, 2026 (9C_120/2026): Federal direct tax and cantonal and municipal taxes for 2010 and 2013–2016 (Schwyz); Challenge to tax bills; the taxpayer argued that the objection decisions of October 18, 2022, had not been properly served on him and were therefore not legally binding. The “corrected” assessment decisions of September 21 and December 5, 2023, based on those decisions, were contestable. The Federal Supreme Court held that service via A-Post Plus, in the sense of a presumption, established a natural presumption of proper service. The taxpayer had not presented any concrete evidence of a service error. The objection decisions had become final. The “corrected” assessment decisions were tax bills within the meaning of Art. 162 DBG, based on final objection decisions. Such bills did not permit a re-examination of the assessment. Dismissal of the appeal.
- Judgment of April 22, 2026 (9C_95/2026, 9C_96/2026): Advance payment of court costs; service of process; A. AG claimed that it had never received the orders for advance payment of costs. The Basel-Stadt Court of Appeal found that the orders had been sent via A-Post Plus and, according to tracking information, had been served on November 21, 2025. The Federal Supreme Court held that electronic tracking, in the sense of an indicator, allowed for the conclusion that service had been properly effected. This presumption could only be rebutted if a comprehensible account was provided and specific indications of error were presented. A. AG argued in general terms that it had not received any shipment, without providing concrete evidence of an error. Dismissal of the appeal by A. AG.
- Judgment of April 20, 2026 (9C_456/2025):2023 Lodging Tax (Municipality of Val Müstair); Own use by a legal entity; A. AG asserted that it was exempt from the accommodation tax because it was subject to unlimited tax liability in the municipality and did not own a vacation property for its own use. The High Court of Graubünden found that the rental of a vacation property owned by the AG to its shareholders and members of the board of directors constituted own use. The Federal Supreme Court stated that the lower court’s interpretation was based on systematic, historical, and teleological analysis and was not objectionable from a constitutional perspective. It would be objectionable if the lodging tax could be circumvented through the involvement of a legal entity. Dismissal of the appeal by A. AG.
- Judgment of April 20, 2026 (9F_2/2026): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes (Zurich) 2016–2017; Petition for Review; The petitioner argued that the Federal Supreme Court had inadvertently failed to take into account that certain documents had already been submitted during the regular assessment proceedings. The Federal Supreme Court stated that the alleged email correspondence did not prove exactly which documents had been submitted. The judgment subject to appeal had noted that the petitioner had been unable to overturn the findings of fact by the lower court for procedural reasons. There were no grounds for appeal under Art. 121(d) BGG. Dismissal of the petition for review.
- Judgment of April 22, 2026 (9C_118/2025): Gift Tax 2017 (Vaud); Animus donandi in the sale of shares; in 2017, the appellant acquired twenty shares of B. AG from his son at a nominal value of CHF 20,000, while their market value was CHF 6,882,000. The cantonal tax administration classified this as a mixed gift. The appellant argued that a pre-emption agreement concluded in 2008 required all shareholders to sell their shares at par value in the event of withdrawal. The Federal Supreme Court held that the agreement granted all three shareholders an equal right of first refusal at par value. It was manifestly incorrect to find that only the sons had been obligated to sell their shares at par value. Given the aleatory nature of the clause, it could not be assumed that the seller had intended to gift a portion of his assets. There was no presumption of an animus donandi between related parties, which is why the tax administration would have had to prove the intent to make a gift. The appeal was upheld.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
