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

Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between July 27 and August 2, 2026:

‍Judgment of June 19, 2026 (9C_291/2026): Federal Direct Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes for 2011 (Vaud); Advance on costs; Following a remand by the Federal Supreme Court, the Cantonal Court set a deadline for the appellant to pay an advance on costs, whereupon she asserted that she had a claim against “the State” (reimbursement of the advance on costs from the Federal Supreme Court proceedings), and therefore was not required to pay the requested advance. The Federal Supreme Court held that, while set-off is in principle possible under public law, it requires that the same public entity be both the creditor and the debtor; in the present case, the advance on costs was owed to the Canton of Vaud, while the reimbursement was made by the Federal Supreme Court—and thus by the Confederation—meaning that two different levels of government were involved. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed.‍
Judgment of July 2, 2026 (9C_370/2026): Household fee pursuant to Art. 69 et seq. of the Radio and Television Act (RTVG); the issue in dispute was the Federal Administrative Court’s denial of free legal aid. The appellant inferred from the closing sentence of a Serafe invoice (“Your account with the collection agency is in good standing.”) that there were no longer any outstanding claims. The Federal Supreme Court held that this letter referred only to subsequent billing periods and did not constitute an admission of debt for the period at issue, rendering the appeal without merit. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.‍
Federal Supreme Court Decision of July 9, 2026 (9C_507/2025): Spirits Tax 2023/2024; In the event that a farm is leased, the taxpayer is responsible for notifying the authorities accordingly. If these obligations to cooperate and report are disregarded, the Federal Tax Administration (BAZG) may impose back taxes on the entire known stock of spirits (tax-exempt personal use). The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.‍
Judgment of June 30, 2026 (9C_296/2025) – scheduled for publication: Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2016 (Bern); Guarantee provision; The issue in dispute was the commercial justification for a guarantee provision of CHF 7 million attributable to the appellant’s share in a joint venture that had carried out a major construction project with a contract value of approximately CHF 733 million. The lower court denied tax recognition because the probabilities of occurrence cited for the 26 potential defects—ranging from 5% to 10% (or 20%) each—were far below the threshold required for a provision. The Federal Supreme Court held that, in principle, a provision should not be recognized if the probability of occurrence is less than 20–25%; however, in the case of highly complex large-scale projects involving a multitude of uncertain obligations, an assessment of the overall risk is necessary: In a first step, the overall probability of occurrence must be calculated; if this results in a probable cash outflow, the amount of the provision must be determined in a second step. By limiting itself to the average probability of occurrence of the individual defects without addressing the overall probability of occurrence, the lower court violated federal law. Partial granting of the taxpayer’s appeal and remand to the lower court for further fact-finding and reassessment.‍
Judgment of July 6, 2026 (9C_632/2024): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2015 and 2019 (Geneva); Withholding tax; The appellant, who was subject to withholding tax, requested a subsequent ordinary assessment for the 2015 and 2019 tax periods, which the cantonal authorities denied because the deadline at the end of March of the following year had passed. The Federal Supreme Court held, with regard to direct federal tax, that a retroactive ordinary assessment must be conducted ex officio if the gross income threshold of CHF 120,000 is exceeded and—once initiated—must continue for all subsequent periods until the end of the withholding tax obligation. Since the appellant had already been subject to retroactive ordinary assessment for 2014, as well as for 2016 through 2018 and 2020, the years 2015 and 2019 could not be excluded in isolation, and the missed deadline could not be held against him. For cantonal taxes, the threshold under Geneva law at that time was CHF 500,000, which the appellant did not reach; however, in light of the high medical expenses claimed, the lower court should have specifically examined whether the flat-rate withholding tax would result in a burden incompatible with the principle of taxation according to economic capacity. The taxpayer’s appeal is granted.‍
Judgment of June 18, 2026 (2C_651/2024): Mutual Assistance (DTA CH-NL); As a legal issue of fundamental importance, the Federal Supreme Court had to clarify whether, in bank documents to be transmitted, the version dates of the bank forms, the issuance and expiration dates of the passport, and the date of establishment of a mentioned trust should be redacted if these dates predated the requested time period. The Federal Administrative Court had ordered the redactions in question to prevent inferences about time periods not covered by the request. The Federal Supreme Court, however, held that, in the absence of a systematic pattern, version dates did not allow for any meaningful inference regarding the duration of the banking relationship, and that redacting them would be disproportionate in light of the requirement for expedited proceedings and the goal of an exchange of information that is as comprehensive and effective as possible. Redacting the passport data also went beyond the permissible plausibility check. The date of the trust’s establishment is likely to be a significant potential identifier. As a general rule, therefore, such redactions should be avoided. The FTA’s appeal was upheld.‍
Judgment of July 8, 2026 (9C_533/2025): Tourism Promotion Tax of the Municipality of U./VS; There is no particular interest in a declaratory judgment regarding the absence of liability in the present case. The collection of tourism promotion taxes from non-canton residents who own or rent out vacation homes is lawful, as they also benefit from tourism demand. The taxpayers’ appeal is dismissed.‍
Judgment of July 13, 2026 (9C_281/2026): Withholding Tax 2021; The issue in dispute was whether the taxpayers were entitled to a refund of withholding tax despite the late filing of their tax returns. The Federal Supreme Court held that, despite a request and two reminders, the taxpayers had failed to file a tax return and had thereby, at least with conditional intent, accepted the risk of underpayment of tax. The subsequent filing of a tax return as part of a belated objection could not remedy the forfeiture of the right to a refund under Art. 23(1) of the Withholding Tax Act (VStG); the exception under Art. 23(2) VStG did not apply. The taxpayers’ appeal was dismissed.‍
Judgments of June 18, 2026 (2C_64/2026, 2C_65/2026, 2C_67/2026, 2C_68/2026, 2C_69/2026): Allocation of Funds from Tourist Tax Revenues—Requests for Recusal; Insofar as the applicable appeal period is not immediately apparent merely by consulting the relevant procedural provision, the appellant in the present case cannot, from the outset, take the position that she was unaware of the ten-day appeal period for appeals against interim orders pursuant to Art. 46(1) VVRG/VS; Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.‍
Judgment of July 2, 2026 (9C_267/2025): Direct Federal Tax 2016; The issue in dispute was whether the profit from the sale of a piece of real estate inherited in 1995—which had previously undisputedly constituted business assets—should be classified as a tax-exempt private capital gain or as a taxable gain from business assets. In particular, the dispute centered on whether the reverse deed signed in 1996, in accordance with the practice of the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) at the time (now enshrined in principle in Art. 18a of the Federal Income Tax Act), covered only the southern portion of the property—on which the farm buildings were situated—as argued by the appellants and deemed plausible by the lower court—or the entire property. Based on an interpretation in accordance with the principle of legitimate expectations, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that, in this case, the repurchase agreement applied to the entire property. The taxation of the hidden reserves on the northern portion of the property was thus also merely deferred until the sale, which is why the capital gain is rightly subject to income taxation in the additional tax assessment proceedings. Dismissal of the taxpayers’ appeal.‍‍
Judgment of July 9, 2026 (9C_121/2026): Federal Direct Tax and State and Municipal Taxes for 2022 (Graubünden); As the lower court correctly held, there is no apparent interest worthy of protection in the issuance of a corresponding (zero) assessment, and in principle there is also no legal interest in challenging such an assessment; the taxpayer’s appeal is dismissed.