Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between July 13 and 19, 2026:
- Judgment of June 23, 2026 (9C_452/2025): State and Municipal Taxes 2015–2019 (Zurich/Zug); Intercantonal Double Taxation; Good Faith; A limited liability company (GmbH) with its registered office in the canton of Zug was definitively assessed for taxes there for the tax periods 2015 through 2018. However, the sole shareholder and sole member of the board of directors conducted his operational activities primarily in Zurich. The Zurich Cantonal Tax Office therefore asserted tax jurisdiction over the company, arguing that the place of effective management was in Zurich. The Federal Supreme Court upheld this ruling and denied the existence of a permanent establishment in the canton of Zug. This constituted intercantonal double taxation, which is why the assessments by the Zug Tax Administration were set aside in accordance with the alternative request. Although the company prevailed against the Canton of Zug, the Federal Supreme Court ordered it to pay all court costs and also required it to pay the Canton of Zug legal costs of CHF 2,600. It justified this decision on the grounds of the company’s breach of good faith, as it had failed to disclose its substantial business activities in Zurich to the Canton of Zug. Partial granting of the appeal against the Canton of Zug; dismissal of the appeal against the Canton of Zurich.
- Judgment of June 29, 2026 (9C_320/2026): Direct Federal Tax 2022; Preservation Order and Free Legal Aid; After an outstanding direct federal tax claim for the 2022 tax period remained unpaid despite enforcement measures, the Aargau Cantonal Tax Office issued a security order pursuant to Art. 169 of the Federal Tax Act (DBG). The taxpayer challenged this order and applied for free legal aid, which was denied by the cantonal courts. Before the Federal Supreme Court, she again requested that the security order be set aside and that legal aid be granted. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant had not sufficiently addressed the lower courts’ reasoning in a manner grounded in constitutional law. The denial of legal aid and the security order were upheld. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
