Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between October 06 - 12, 2025:
- Judgment of September 4, 2025 (9C_239/2025): State and municipal taxes (Zurich) and direct federal tax 2016; discretionary assessment; The Federal Supreme Court had to assess whether a discretionary assessment had been carried out lawfully. According to Art. 130 para. 2 DBG, a discretionary assessment can be made if the taxpayer does not comply with their procedural obligations despite a reminder and the tax factors cannot be determined correctly due to a lack of reliable documentation. In the present case, the taxpayers carried out a share buyback, whereby the declared purchase price deviated considerably from the official wealth tax value. This discrepancy gave rise to the assumption that the shares were bought back at a higher price. As the taxpayers did not provide any plausible explanations or coherent information, this presumption could not be rebutted. The resulting uncertainty in the facts prevented the tax authorities from properly determining the tax factors on the basis of reliable documentation. The Federal Supreme Court therefore confirmed the opinion of the lower courts and affirmed the requirements for a discretionary assessment. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of September 4, 2024 (9C_376/2025): Cantonal and communal taxes 2017 (Geneva); Valuation of unlisted securities; The appellant was unable to provide substantial evidence that the company in question was a cross-shareholding company, meaning that the dividends received should be deducted from the capitalized earnings value. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of September 4, 2025 (9C_98/2025): Zurich state and municipal taxes and direct federal tax July 2015 - June 2017: Participation profit tax value Art. 62 para. 4 DBG; In the present case, the taxpayer valued its participation in C.AG at the stock market price until the 2014/2015 financial year. In the 2015/2016 financial year, A.AG switched to the lower of cost or market principle and consequently omitted the revaluation recognized in profit or loss under commercial law. In the assessment procedure, the tax authorities rightly revalued the investment in the tax balance sheet at the stock market price. All of the taxpayer's arguments proved to be unfounded. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
