Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between January 5 and 11, 2026:
- Judgment of December 5, 2025 (9F_24/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2014–2020 (Geneva); appeal; the taxpayer does not explain how there could be grounds for appeal under Art. 121(d) BGG. Dismissal of the taxpayer's request for review.
- Judgment of December 1, 2025 (9C_315/2023): State and municipal taxes 2018 (Zurich); intercantonal double taxation; it is undisputed that the taxpayer is currently subject to double taxation in the cantons of Zurich and Graubünden. The issue in dispute is whether the taxpayer's right of appeal or the right of taxation of the second assessing canton (Zurich) has been forfeited. The taxpayer's right of appeal has not been forfeited, as he has not engaged in any qualified abusive conduct. In particular, the fact that he deregistered in the canton of Zurich shortly before receiving a lump-sum payment from his pension plan is not sufficient grounds for this. Nor has the canton of Zurich forfeited its right to tax, as it took action on July 15, 2021, three months after receiving notification of the payment of a lump-sum pension benefit in 2021. This means that the criterion of "knowing, should have known or could have known" is not met and the right to tax has not been forfeited. Appeal against the canton of Graubünden upheld. Appeal against the canton of Zurich dismissed.
- Judgment of December 23, 2025 (9C_369/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2010 (Solothurn); The dispute concerned additional taxes in connection with patents that the taxpayer had acquired from a limited liability company in 2009 and transferred to a newly founded corporation in 2010. The lower court classified the holding/management of the patents as self-employment and allocated the patents to business assets; from this, it derived a taxable realization (private withdrawal) at market value for 2010 and confirmed the additional tax assessments (valuation according to the DCF method). The Federal Supreme Court countered that, despite an explicit referral back, the lower court had not supplemented the legally relevant facts and, in particular, had not established any concrete, proven evidence of self-employment on the part of the taxpayer between April 2009 and June 2010. Since classification as business assets increases the tax liability, the tax authority bears the objective burden of proof; if the facts remain unproven, this is to the detriment of the authority. Consequently, the patents are to be classified as private assets. The taxpayer's appeal is upheld.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
