Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between September 8 - 14, 2025:
- Judgment of August 04, 2025 (9C_671/2024): VAT 2014-2018: In this case, the FSC had to decide in a five-judge panel whether the place of the tax-exempt educational services provided was in Switzerland or abroad. The appellant was of the opinion that tax-exempt educational services had been provided abroad and relied on the FTA's MBI 20 in the pre-revised version. The Federal Supreme Court followed the lower instance and held that the aforementioned practice determination could not be understood as an individual, specific assurance and further stated that the VAT Act as interpreted on June 12, 2009 (I) requires the borderline between educational services (face-to-face and online events, pursuant to Art. 8 para. 2 lit. c VAT Act) on the one hand and electronic services (pursuant to Art. 8 para. 1 VAT Act) on the other hand. MWSTG) on the other hand, i.e. the place of activity principle applies in the present case, whereby (II) the place of the registered office of the educational institution is logically relevant for determining the place of supply. Partial approval of the taxpayer's appeal with regard to the statute of limitations for the 2014 tax period, dismissal of the remainder of the appeal.
- Judgment of August 12, 2025 (9C_182/2025): Direct federal tax and state and communal taxes 2020-2021 (Vaud); discretionary assessment; The dispute was whether the discretionary assessments were null and void, as the appellants claimed. The Federal Supreme Court recalled that a void assessment must be assumed if, in addition to the qualified incorrectness of the content of the assessment in question, there is also a serious breach of procedural law. No grounds for nullity in this sense could be derived from the obviously unfounded complaint. Dismissal of the appeal by the liable party.
- Judgment of August 14, 2025 (9C_416/2024) - scheduled for publication: Direct federal tax as well as state and communal taxes 2014 (Vaud): In particular, the tax assessment in the event of a change from limited to unlimited tax liability during the year in an international relationship (Switzerland-France) was disputed. The lower courts followed the principle of the unity of the tax period applicable in the intercantonal relationship. However, the Federal Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the lower courts had violated federal law by determining the tax rate on the basis of a single assessment decision, taking into account all of the appellant's income in Switzerland and France. Instead, they should have split the tax period, made two separate calculations and issued two separate rulings, as the appellant had limited tax liability in January and February 2014 and unlimited tax liability from March 2014. According to the Federal Supreme Court, this solution was all the more justified as the appellant and his ex-wife lived in cohabitation in 2014, but were not resident in the same state in January and February 2014 and the KS ESTV No. 30 expressly recommends separate taxation in this constellation. Appeal by the liable party upheld.
- Judgment of August 25, 2025 (9C_334/2025): Withholding tax 2021: The complainant was of the opinion that it could fulfill its withholding tax liability on a cash dividend to its sole shareholder - a natural person domiciled in Switzerland - through the notification procedure. The Federal Council ordinance, which differentiated between natural persons and legal entities as shareholders, constituted arbitrary and unjustified unequal treatment, according to the appellant. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the lower court in its dismissal of the appeal, as it is provided by law that the Federal Council determines the qualifying constellations for the reporting procedure in its ordinance and the Federal Supreme Court does not have to comment on the (economic) appropriateness of an ordinance provision. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal in the simplified procedure, insofar as it is to be upheld.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
