Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between August 4 - 10, 2025:
- Judgment of July 9, 2025 (9C_12/2025): Direct federal tax and state and communal taxes 2010-2011 (Vaud); The issue in dispute was whether the appellant (real estate) company was right to exclude gains from the sale of shares in an investment fund with direct real estate holdings from its taxable profit. The appellant argued that capital gains from the sale of units in an investment fund with direct real estate holdings should be treated in the same way for tax purposes as gains from the sale of the directly held real estate of the fund itself. This was to avoid double or triple taxation. The Federal Supreme Court stated that the KmGK with direct real estate holdings is treated as a legal entity for tax purposes, meaning that gains from the sale of corresponding shares - subject to a statutory correction standard - are part of the taxable profit. The demanded equal treatment of profits at different levels is inadmissible and unconvincing. In addition, multiple taxation was intended by law and should be accepted accordingly. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of July 15, 2025 (9C_452/2024): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2017 (Geneva); The taxpayer had given its subsidiary, SI, a loan in 2012 for the acquisition of a project property. At the end of 2017, it recognized a provision on the loan on the grounds that the project was blocked due to ongoing proceedings relating to the revision of the building and zoning regulations. The building and zoning regulations were actually repealed by the Federal Supreme Court in 2020. In 2017, however, only one case was pending before the cantonal court and the repeal was not yet foreseeable. Consequently, there was not yet sufficient certainty of an imminent loss as at the balance sheet date. The provision in 2017 is therefore not justified on business grounds. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of July 15, 2025 (9C_262/2025): Compensation of parties; in terms of substantive law, the dispute was based on proceedings concerning mineral oil tax, mineral oil tax surcharges and import taxes (see in particular judgment BGer 2C_535/2019 of July 23, 2020 and our article of September 27, 2020). The BAZG lost the case by around 80%, whereby the case was referred back to the administration for a new decision in line with the considerations. In its ruling, the FOCA set compensation for the parties, against which the complainant appealed to the FAC. The FAC set the hourly rate of the legal representative entered in the cantonal register of lawyers at CHF 400, which is at the upper end of the range defined in the FAC's costs and compensation regulations. The FOCA appealed against this to the Federal Supreme Court, but was unable to show that the hourly rate set was contrary to federal law in application of the regulations. Dismissal of the BAZG's appeal.
- Judgment of July 10, 2025 (9C_719/2024): Taxe professionelle communale 2022 and 2023 (Lancy/GE); The Federal Supreme Court has judged the TPC to be constitutional in the past; the taxpayer does not show why this case law should be deviated from. The TPC (abolished as of 2024) continues to be moderate and therefore constitutional. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of July 10, 2025 (9C_246/2024): Handover tax 2022 (Lucerne); The BGer protects the decision of the Cantonal Court of LU, according to which the granting of a right of use to 24 precisely designated parking spaces in exchange for the right of use to 30 unspecified spaces qualifies as a change of ownership within the meaning of § 2 para. 1 no. 3 lit. c HStG/LU. The transfer tax can also be triggered by exchange transactions, a profit is not a prerequisite. The Federal Supreme Court further states that a transaction by way of a mere supplement to a document - in contrast to the present deletion of the old easement and registration of the new easement - can also constitute a taxable change of ownership. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-compliance, write-off decisions, etc.:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
