Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between September 22 - 28, 2025:
- Judgment of August 27, 2025 (9C_706/2024): State and municipal taxes 2014 (Ticino); intercantonal double taxation; The dispute was whether the tax domicile of the appellant couple was in the canton of Schwyz or - as assumed by the lower court - in the canton of Ticino. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the assessment of the lower court, as the appellants continued to have a large apartment in Ticino, their electricity and water consumption remained unchanged despite their alleged departure and there were family and professional ties to Ticino, whereas there were none to Schwyz. In terms of procedural law, it should be noted that the Ticino tax administration initially only issued an assessment with limited tax liability for cantonal tax, but in the objection proceedings issued a tax domicile ruling with unlimited tax liability in Ticino, which became legally binding without being contested. The canton of Schwyz subsequently assessed the years 2014 to 2019 for state and municipal taxes as well as direct federal tax. Later, the canton of Ticino also issued assessment decisions for the 2014 tax period for cantonal and direct federal tax. The cantonal appeals authority dismissed the appeals lodged against this with regard to cantonal tax and did not hear the appeals relating to direct federal tax due to the lack of an admissible object of appeal. Dismissal of the appeal by the liable parties.
- Judgment of August 27, 2025 (9C_154/2025): Direct federal tax 2014 (Ticino); After the cantonal appeal authority deemed the appeal regarding direct federal tax in parallel proceedings (see judgment 9C_706/2024) to be inadmissible and qualified it as an objection, the cantonal tax authority issued the outstanding objection decision regarding direct federal tax. Following an unsuccessful cantonal appeal, the appellants appealed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court. In particular, it was disputed whether the decision was null and void due to a violation of Art. 108 DBG. The Federal Supreme Court recalled that, according to recent case law, the lack of involvement of the FTA pursuant to Art. 108 DBG can generally lead to nullity. This applies in particular if the tax domicile was incorrectly determined and there is no legitimate interest in upholding the decision. If, on the other hand, the tax domicile was determined correctly - as in the present case - this determination must be upheld in the interests of a uniform solution for direct federal tax and for reasons of procedural economy. Dismissal of the appeal of the liable parties.
- Judgment of August 27, 2025 (9C_617/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2024 (Geneva); A municipality bordering the canton of Geneva owns several properties in the canton of Geneva and generates income from them. The cantonal tax office rejects an application for tax exemption of this income. In line with the lower court, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that tax exemption was not possible on the basis of Art. 56 let. c/Art. 23 para. 1 let. i StHG or the prohibition of discrimination under the DTA FR . The municipality should also not be exempted from tax as a charitable organization. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of August 27, 2025 (9C_590/2024) - for publication: VAT, tax periods 2015-2020: In this case, it was disputed whether the services provided are to be qualified as electronic services within the meaning of the VAT Act and whether they were rightly subject to VAT in Switzerland. The appellant, a company based in the Netherlands, provides an online accommodation reservation system and was of the opinion that it was exempt from the Swiss VAT obligation, as it only provides services to businesses in Switzerland and the provision of the counter-exception to the VAT exemption in Art. 10 para. 2 lit. b MWSTG ("non-taxable recipients") is only limited to private individuals and non-entrepreneurs. The BGer followed the lower court in finding that an electronic service is given (and not a travel agency service pursuant to Art. 8 para. 2 lit. b MWSTG, as possibly requested by the appellant), that the aforementioned passage does not differentiate between private individuals and companies, that the appellant was therefore rightly included in the Swiss VAT register and that it does not have to be granted access to the FTA's internal calculation to determine the services already invoiced by its service recipients - by means of the reference tax - as the FTA had made an "extraordinarily great effort to find a solution that was appropriate and appropriate to the situation". Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
