Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (CW –2CW )

Overview of tax law decisions by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between May 18 and 24, 2026:

Judgment of April 23, 2026 (9C_316/2025): Federal, cantonal, and municipal taxes (Geneva); tax exemption based on public benefit status; A local nature and landscape conservation association had its tax exemption not renewed as of 2022. The tax administration and the lower court were of the opinion that the association’s activities benefited too narrow a group of beneficiaries (municipal residents) and constituted primarily political activities (objections, statements). The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal and corrected both points: For the open group of beneficiaries, it is not decisive whether an association is locally based, but whether its activities serve a group of people extending beyond the municipal residents—which was the case here, since individual projects (protection of landscape and forest areas, highway overpass) also benefited non-residents. The use of political means does not preclude charitable status, as long as these means serve the association’s altruistic purpose and political influence is not the primary focus. Upholding of the appeal by the appealing association.
Judgment of April 28, 2026 (9C_641/2025): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes 2010–2015 (Geneva); The taxpayers—specifically the husband—inherited an art collection from his parents in 1996. In 2010, 2013, and 2014, the taxpayers sold various works of art. In 2015, the sale of the works of art was classified as self-employment, and the capital gains for the years 2010, 2013, and 2014 were retroactively subject to income tax. Since neither the date of acquisition nor the acquisition value of the individual works of art was known, the tax administration estimated the acquisition value based on a list of the total value of the collection, which it had received from the taxpayer. It determined the value of the individual works of art by dividing the total value of the collection by the number of works of art. In the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court, this approach is not objectionable. The same applies to the estimation of the taxpayer’s living expenses, which served as the basis for the estimation of assets. The taxpayer’s appeal regarding the 2010 tax period is upheld due to the statute of limitations. In all other respects, the taxpayer’s appeal is dismissed.
Judgment of April 29, 2026 (9C_169/2026): Direct Federal Tax for 2015–2016 and State and Municipal Taxes for 2019–2020 (Zurich); Assessment of back taxes; During the assessment of the taxpayer’s limited liability company (GmbH) for the year 2019, the tax administration received a wage statement from the taxpayer, although the taxpayer had not declared the corresponding wages. In the subsequent back-tax proceedings initiated for the years 2014–2024, the tax administration, based on information from the SVA, requested copies of wage statements and employment contracts from nine different employers and assessed back taxes for the years 2015–2016 and 2019–2020. In the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court, the lower court rightly upheld this decision, and the appellant is unable to substantiate either how the lower court arbitrarily determined the facts of the case or how the additional tax was wrongfully assessed. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Judgment of May 1, 2026 (9C_164/2025): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2014 (Appenzell Ausserrhoden); In the present case, the taxpayer received an inflow of CHF 3.39 million. The issue at hand was whether this amount should be reported as taxable income within the meaning of Art. 16(1) of the Federal Tax Act (DBG) for the 2014 tax period, or whether—as claimed by the taxpayer—it constituted a tax-neutral inflow (capital repayment or a loan subject to a repayment obligation). Accordingly, the taxpayer failed to report the amount on his tax return. The Federal Supreme Court classified the payment as consideration for the taxpayer’s influence on a transaction and thus as taxable income pursuant to Art. 16 para. 1 DBG. The remunerative nature of the payment should have been apparent to the taxpayer. By failing to declare the payment with at least conditional intent, he fulfilled the objective and subjective requirements for tax evasion. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.

Non-occurrence: