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

Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between June 29 and July 5, 2026:

Judgment of June 2, 2026 (9C_697/2024): Turnover Tax 2016–2020; The issue in dispute was whether a Liechtenstein single-investor fund qualifies as a foreign collective investment scheme within the meaning of Art. 119 of the Collective Investment Schemes Act (KAG) and is therefore exempt from the turnover tax pursuant to Art. 17a(1)(c) of the Tax Act (StG). The lower court ruled against this, reasoning that the fund did not meet the requirements applicable to Swiss single-investor funds under Art. 7(3) of the Investment Funds Act (KAG) in conjunction with Art. 5 of the Investment Funds Ordinance (KKV). The appellant argued that, in assessing the disputed issue, FINMA’s practice regarding Art. 119 of the Collective Investment Schemes Act (KAG) was primarily decisive, according to which recognition by the competent foreign supervisory authority is sufficient and the requirements of Art. 7 of the KAG are not additionally examined. The Federal Supreme Court held that Art. 119 CISA contains a distinct definition of a foreign collective investment scheme and that foreign funds are not required to meet all the requirements of Swiss law. In doing so, it also took into account Circular 24 of the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV), according to which single-investor funds are recognized provided they are authorized by a recognized foreign supervisory authority (such as that of Liechtenstein). The Liechtenstein single-investor fund therefore qualified as a foreign collective investment scheme—exempt from the turnover tax. The taxpayer’s appeal was upheld.‍
Judgment of June 9, 2026 (9C_652/2025): – scheduled for publication: State and Municipal Taxes 2016–2021 (Zurich/Zug); Tax Domicile; A limited liability company (GmbH) with its registered office in the canton of Zug, whose sole shareholder resided in the canton of Zurich and operated primarily abroad, contested the tax jurisdiction claimed by the canton of Zurich beginning in 2016. The Federal Supreme Court substantively confirmed that the place of actual management was in the canton of Zurich: Since no physical presence could be demonstrated either in the canton of Zug (mailbox domicile, domicile fee of CHF 1,200 per year) or abroad (no permanent business establishment), the lower court was entitled to conclude, with a high degree of probability, that the sole shareholder’s residence in the canton of Zurich constituted the place of actual management. On procedural grounds, the Federal Supreme Court then held that anyone filing an intercantonal double taxation appeal must mandatorily file their claim “bidirectionally,” that is, both against the canton making the claim and—alternatively—against the canton that has already assessed the tax. The Federal Supreme Court has abandoned the previous practice, under which “no high requirements” were imposed on challenging the other canton and an implicit alternative claim was sufficient. The company had submitted the alternative claim regarding the Canton of Zug only after the appeal deadline had expired and thus belatedly. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed.‍
Judgment of June 12, 2026 (9F_10/2026): State and Municipal Taxes for 2016 (Geneva); The issue in dispute was whether the Federal Supreme Court judgment 9C_393/2025 (see our article on the judgment of February 24, 2026 (9C_393/2025)) should be reviewed pursuant to Art. 121 et seq. BGG or corrected pursuant to Art. 129 BGG. The Geneva Tax Administration argued that the Federal Supreme Court had clearly misstated the facts by assuming that the tax administration had already been aware of the facts relevant to taxation based on an on-site audit in January 2018. The Federal Supreme Court held that there was no statutory ground for review, as the petitioner’s argument would amount to an impermissible substantive review of the final judgment. The motion for correction, filed as a contingency, was also deemed inadmissible because there was no clerical or calculation error, nor any contradiction between the operative part and the reasoning. Dismissal of the motion for review; refusal to consider the motion for correction.‍
Judgment of June 10, 2026 (9C_533/2024, 9C_540/2024): Federal, cantonal, and municipal taxes for 2018–2021 (Vaud); The dispute concerns the taxation of the receivables and interest from the loans that the spouses granted to various real estate companies during the tax years 2018–2021. On the one hand, it must be determined whether the contractually agreed-upon interest is taxable as income and whether the value of the corresponding receivables must be taken into account for wealth taxation purposes. On the other hand, the question arises as to whether the late-payment interest that became due in the years 2019–2021 on the loans granted by the taxpayers constitutes taxable income. In the case of loan interest, the date of maturity is generally decisive for the recognition of income, since the creditor acquires a fixed claim against the debtor as of that date. In the present case, the taxpayers are unable to prove either the insolvency or the unwillingness of Company C. to pay, and consequently cannot prove that the interest claim is worthless. Late payment interest does not compensate for damage to the capital itself, but rather constitutes compensation for delayed performance. From an economic perspective, it constitutes a monetary benefit accruing to the creditor and must therefore be classified as taxable income. The appeal by the tax authority of the Canton of Vaud is upheld.‍‍
Judgment of June 8, 2026 (9C_310/2025): Federal, Cantonal, and Municipal Taxes for 2012–2017 (Vaud); The legal dispute concerns the tax evasion proceedings and the fines imposed. In particular, it must be determined whether the cantonal court correctly upheld the finding that the taxpayer was guilty of completed tax evasion for the 2012 and 2013 tax periods and of attempted tax evasion for the 2014 through 2017 tax periods. The taxpayer’s arguments do not convincingly refute the findings and reasoning of the cantonal court, according to which the taxpayer failed to report her income from foreign sources and could not have been unaware that this income was not subject to withholding tax. Furthermore, her cooperation in the preparation of the back-tax assessments and the regular assessments was in response to requests for information from the cantonal tax administration regarding the periods in dispute, and not on her own initiative or of her own volition. The taxpayer’s appeal is dismissed.‍‍
Judgment of June 10, 2026 (9C_600/2025): Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2018 (Vaud): The legal dispute centers on the question of whether the Vaud Cantonal Tax Administration was correct in refusing to subject the lump-sum payment received by the taxpayer under an occupational pension plan to separate taxation pursuant to Art. 38 of the Federal Tax Act (DBG) and Art. 49 LI/VD. Although the taxpayer briefly registered as a self-employed person with the compensation fund, he never actually engaged in such work and subsequently became an employee of a stock corporation (AG) he had founded himself. The tax authority then demanded that the taxpayer repay the total amount of the benefit received in error. Since the cantonal court’s reasoning could have given the taxpayers the impression that they might have the option of repaying the disputed lump-sum payment, it must be corrected ex officio. Under these circumstances, the case is remanded to the tax administration. The taxpayers’ appeal is partially granted.‍
Judgment of June 19, 2026 (9C_280/2026): Value-Added Tax; The issue in this case was whether the taxpayer was justified in invoking the principle of equal treatment and demanding that no input tax deduction be made under Art. 33(2) of the Value-Added Tax Act (MWSTG) with respect to a contribution from the historic preservation fund—in accordance with the Federal Tax Administration’s (ESTV) practice regarding COVID-19 contributions. The appellant argued that both the COVID-19 grants and the historic preservation grant were subsidies within the meaning of Art. 18(2)(a) of the VAT Act, and therefore the factual circumstances regarding the input tax deduction reduction were identical. The Federal Supreme Court held that equal treatment in cases of unlawful conduct requires that the affected persons be in the same or a comparable situation and that the unlawful practice continue to be applied. It ruled that this was not the case, since COVID-19 contributions served to address an extraordinary, temporary pandemic and financed operating costs, whereas the contribution from the historic preservation fund relates to investment costs and is paid out regardless of any special circumstances. Furthermore, the contested practice would lose its significance in the foreseeable future as the COVID-19 measures are phased out. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.