Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between September 21 and 27, 2026:
- Judgment of August 28, 2026 (9C_173/2026) – scheduled for publication: Direct Federal Tax 2016–2017 (Graubünden/Ticino); Determination of the place of assessment pursuant to Art. 108 of the Federal Tax Act (DBG) and the Federal Tax Administration’s (ESTV) standing to appeal; A married couple was assessed for the 2016 and 2017 tax periods by both the canton of Graubünden and the canton of Ticino on the basis of unlimited tax liability and therefore requested the FTA to determine the place of assessment for direct federal tax. The FTA suspended this proceeding until the Ticino proceedings concerning cantonal and municipal taxes had been conclusively resolved. The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) overturned this interim decision on the grounds that it was incompatible with Art. 108 of the Federal Tax Act (DBG). The Federal Supreme Court (FSC) denied the FTA’s standing to file an administrative appeal under Art. 89(2)(a) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (BGG), which serves to oversee the enforcement by other authorities. When determining the place of assessment, however, the FTA does not act in a supervisory capacity but rather under assessment law as a neutral, arbitration-like body; therefore, it cannot first issue a ruling in the same proceeding and then challenge an appeal decision it finds unfavorable on supervisory grounds. The FTA’s appeal is dismissed as inadmissible.
- Judgment of August 31, 2026 (9C_365/2026): Refund of withholding tax, 2019 tax year (Ticino); despite a reminder and a fine, the taxpayers failed to file a tax return and were assessed on a discretionary basis. Only after the judgment became final did they report a dividend of CHF 400,000 and request a refund of withholding tax; they did not pursue the request, which was treated as a late objection. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the failure to file a tax return was committed with conditional intent and not merely through negligence: By deliberately refraining from filing a tax return, the taxpayers had accepted the possibility of incomplete taxation. This was not altered by the fact that the distributing company had reported the dividend to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA), since the obligation to file a return rests with the taxpayers themselves and the cantonal tax assessment authority is not required to cross-check records with third-party files held by another authority. The requirements for a refund under Art. 23(2) of the Tax Refund Act (VStG) were therefore not met. The taxpayers’ appeal was dismissed to the extent that it was considered.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
