Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (CW 32–2026)

Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between August 3 and 9, 2026:

Judgment of June 18, 2026 (2C_157/2024) – scheduled for publication: Mutual Assistance (DTA CH-DE); Access to files; The FTA demanded that the contact information of the requesting German authority, as well as the names and contact information of its employees, be redacted regardless of the specific circumstances, citing the update to the OECD Model Convention of February 19, 2024, according to which only information essential to the proceedings is to be disclosed to the taxpayer. The Federal Supreme Court held that, while the most current version of the OECD Model Convention generally governs administrative assistance, a more recent version is irrelevant if the interpretation expressed therein lacks a sufficient basis in the treaty itself and is additionally incompatible with fundamental rights. Both of these conditions apply here: Art. 27(2) of the CH-DE Tax Treaty serves to protect informational self-determination and not to maintain secrecy vis-à-vis the person concerned, and para. 3(f) of the Protocol refers to Art. 29(2) of the Federal Constitution, under which the right to inspect files does not depend on the documents’ relevance to the decision. A general redaction, regardless of the circumstances, cannot therefore be based on either the agreement or a public interest. Dismissal of the FTA’s appeal.

Judgment of July 17, 2026 (9C_596/2025): Value-Added Tax 2020–2021; The issue in dispute was whether geothermal exploration grants should be classified as cost-compensation payments within the meaning of Art. 18(2)(g) of the Value-Added Tax Act (MWSTG) or as subsidies within the meaning of Art. 18(2)(a) of the MWSTG, the latter of which would result in a reduction of the input tax deduction. The Federal Supreme Court held that, given the early stage of the project, the promotion of exploration work, and the absence of direct electricity production, the grants are to be classified as subsidies under Art. 18(2)(a) of the VAT Act. Furthermore, geothermal exploration grants are classified as subsidies in MBI 07. Although this is an administrative regulation that is not binding on the court, it must nevertheless be taken into account, and the court may not deviate from it without good cause, provided that it constitutes a convincing elaboration of the legal requirements. The classification as a subsidy also corresponds to the explicit designation in the subsidy agreement. The FTA correctly reduced the input tax deduction proportionally. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Judgment of July 21, 2026 (9C_175/2026): Federal direct tax and cantonal and municipal taxes for 2019–2023 (Ticino); intercantonal double taxation; The appellant couple had moved their residence from Ticino to Obwalden in 2017 and then to Graubünden in 2020; based on findings from criminal proceedings against the husband, the Canton of Ticino retroactively claimed unlimited tax jurisdiction starting in 2019. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s overall assessment, according to which the center of life was, with a high degree of probability, in Ticino (the couple’s own statements regarding their weekly stays, results of the house searches in all three cantons, the husband’s positions on the boards of four Ticino companies, a travel log, and their daughter’s residence in Ticino). The objection that the Ticino tax authorities had used evidence from a search of premises—which the canton of Obwalden had conducted in execution of an Italian request for mutual legal assistance—was unsuccessful: The prohibition on use binds the requesting state, not the requested state, for the latter’s domestic purposes. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of July 20, 2026 (9C_53/2026): Withholding Tax 2020 (Valais); Denial of a refund of CHF 378,000 due to forfeiture; The taxpayer, born in 1943, received an asymmetric dividend of CHF 1,080,000 from the liquidation of her late husband’s company, but did not declare the equity interest, the dividend, or the bank account opened for that purpose in her 2020 tax return. The Federal Supreme Court held that neither Form 103 submitted by the company nor the correspondence between the attorney representing the company and the estate and the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) could substitute for the taxpayer’s personal obligation to declare. Only a voluntary disclosure by the taxpayer in the tax return itself is considered a declaration within the meaning of Art. 23(1) of the Tax Declaration Act (VStG). Given the amount of the payment in relation to her previous income and assets, as well as the declaration of her other bank accounts, the omission was not based on mere negligence within the meaning of Art. 23(2) of the Tax Declaration Act (VStG); age, lack of tax knowledge, and personal stress were not sufficient grounds for this. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of July 8, 2026 (9C_725/2024, 9C_418/2025): Cantonal and Municipal Taxes 2011–2020 (Geneva); Revocation of a Tax Relief; The Canton of Geneva revoked the 50% tax relief granted to a group company based on a “clawback” clause after the company had transferred central functions to a German group company in 2023 and was operating solely as a limited-risk distributor. The Federal Supreme Court classified the unilateral decision of the Cantonal Council as an administrative order that could be revoked unilaterally and limited its review to arbitrariness, since Art. 23(3) of the Federal Tax Act (StHG) grants the cantons broad discretion. The decline in head office functions (jobs: –43%), profits (–64%), and enterprise value (–76%) could reasonably be interpreted as a relocation of a predominant part of the business. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of July 17, 2026 (9C_706/2025): Real Estate Gains Tax 2018 (Zurich); The flat-rate allowance of real estate broker commissions of 2% (standard commission) and 1.5% for transactions exceeding CHF 10 million, or 3% in cases where the property is difficult to sell, does not conflict with federal or constitutional law. The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
Judgment of July 14, 2026 (9C_488/2025): Direct Federal Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes for 2020 (Zurich); Based on the totality of the circumstances, the couple had established their center of life in the Canton of Zurich for the 2020 tax period, even though they moved back to the Canton of Ticino after a few years. Dismissal of the taxpayers’ appeal.
Judgment of July 22, 2026 (9C_391/2025): State and Municipal Taxes 2013 (Bern); Due to the appellant’s unlimited tax liability in the Canton of Bern, the tax assessment by the Canton of Schwyz for the same tax period, which has already become final, must be set aside; it is not apparent to what extent the Canton of Schwyz would have incurred significant additional expenses as a result of the appellant’s conduct. Rather, as evidenced above all by its 2016 notice to the tax administration of the Canton of Bern—in which it stated that the appellant was more likely subject to unlimited tax liability in the Canton of Bern due to personal ties—the respondent was already aware at that time that its tax jurisdiction appeared, at the very least, questionable. The taxpayer’s appeal is granted, but the taxpayer is ordered to pay the court costs.
Judgment of July 28, 2026 (9C_68/2026): Real Estate Gains Tax 2021 (Bern); The taxpayer partially leased the property beginning in 1994, held a right of first refusal and a right of purchase, exercised the latter in 2001, and was registered as the owner in the land register in 2003. The issue in dispute was whether the period of ownership and the value-enhancing expenditures should be calculated as of 2003 or as early as 1994. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the restrictive interpretation of the economic transfer of ownership under Art. 12(2)(a) of the Federal Tax Act (StHG) and held that neither the right of first refusal nor the right to purchase, nor the partial lease, nor any combination thereof conferred power of disposal equivalent to that of an owner; the reasons for the delayed civil-law transfer of ownership and prior investments are irrelevant. A period of ownership of 18 years remained the decisive factor; value-enhancing expenditures made prior to 2003 were not taken into account. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.

Non-occurrence: