Overview of tax law decisions by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between September 14 and 20, 2026:
- Judgment of August 19, 2026 (9C_388/2026): Federal, cantonal, and municipal taxes for 2023 (Zug); Nullity of a discretionary assessment; The appellant based her claim that the final discretionary assessment was null and void solely on the discrepancy with the tax return filed subsequently. The Federal Supreme Court held that this merely raised an objection to the obvious inaccuracy of the estimate, which could only be asserted in ordinary proceedings. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
- Judgment of August 19, 2026 (9C_389/2026): Federal, cantonal, and municipal taxes for 2023 (Zug); Appeal of a discretionary assessment; This judgment is based essentially on the same facts as the judgment of August 19, 2026 (9C_388/2026), referred to here under the heading “Appeal.” The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the subsidiary nature of the appeal and held that the tax return, which was submitted only after the judgment became final, did not constitute grounds for appeal, especially since a legal entity must organize itself in such a way that someone can act on its behalf in a timely manner. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
- Judgment of August 27, 2026 (9C_292/2026): State and Municipal Taxes, Aargau 2023; Reminder and Debt Collection Fees: The fees totaling CHF 220 for late filing of the tax return and late payment (plus debt collection) do not violate federal law. Furthermore, because the case has no prospect of success, there is no entitlement to free legal aid. The taxpayer’s appeal is dismissed.
- Judgment of August 27, 2026 (9C_680/2025): VAT 2016–2018; (no) possibility of exercising the option under Art. 22(2)(a) of the VAT Act for real estate supplies prior to the commencement of the taxpayer’s VAT liability, and exclusion of the right to deduct input tax for services acquired in connection therewith. On December 18, 2014, A (the appellant) acquired a parcel of land and had a general contractor construct, among other things, two apartment buildings on it. Construction began on April 14, 2015. By means of a notarized purchase agreement dated October 29, 2015, A sold, among other things, a multi-family residence to be built on a turnkey basis to C. The purchase agreement showed an 8% VAT on a portion of the purchase price (relating to a portion of the multi-family residence) and expressly stated that an option for partial taxation of the purchase price had been exercised. The transfer of ownership was entered in the land registry on November 24, 2015. C took possession (transfer of risk and benefit) on December 1, 2016. A did not submit the questionnaire to clarify VAT liability until November 1, 2016, and requested that the FTA retroactively register the company in the VAT register effective January 1, 2015. The FTA only granted this effective January 1, 2016, thereby denying the right to input tax deduction for the 2015 tax period. Conversely, in a supplementary assessment for this tax period, the FTA claimed the VAT that it considered to have been incorrectly invoiced, pursuant to Art. 27 of the VAT Act. A accepted this. However, A subsequently claimed a tax credit for capital contributions via a corrected tax return for the first quarter of 2016. In subsequent corrective returns, she claimed additional input tax credits. Following an audit, the FTA denied the right to an input tax credit, arguing that A had incurred the input tax on exempt real estate supplies and that, in this case, the option to tax the supply was not available because A had not become a taxpayer until January 1, 2016. The Federal Administrative Court (BVGer) and the Federal Supreme Court (BGer) upheld the ESTV’s decision. For the BGer, the decisive factor is that the transfer of the real property to C took place upon registration in the land registry on November 24, 2015, and thus before the taxpayer’s tax liability began. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
