Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between October 13 - 19, 2025:
- Judgment of September 24, 2025 (2C_352/2024) - for publication: As a legal question of fundamental importance, the Federal Supreme Court had to clarify whether a state (in this case Israel) can be granted administrative assistance if it claims to have exhausted the usual sources of information available under its procedural law (principle of subsidiarity), even though its domestic law does not stipulate that the taxpayer must be contacted before a request for administrative assistance is made. From the perspective of the requested state, the Federal Supreme Court stated that the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Art. 21 para. 2 let. g MAC merely provides for the right of the requested state to refuse administrative assistance if the requesting state has not exhausted all reasonable domestic means of obtaining information. There was no actual obligation to refuse administrative assistance based on the agreement or on domestic procedural rules. From the perspective of the requesting state, the Federal Supreme Court made it clear that it could not be accused of not having taken measures to obtain information that were not provided for under its law. Furthermore, the requesting state was in any case not obliged to take measures where it seemed unlikely that the requested information could be obtained without administrative assistance. Dismissal of the appeal.
- Judgment of September 11, 2025 (9C_15/2025): Cantonal and municipal taxes (Bern) and direct federal tax 2011; procedural law: In this case, the lower instance (Administrative Court) rightly confirmed the decision of the Tax Appeals Commission. The complaint of legal delay was not upheld due to a lack of justification, the relative statute of limitations did not apply and there was no legally sufficient discussion of the considerations of the lower instance. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of September 11, 2025 (9C_243/2024): Gift tax 2022 (Vaud); At issue was the qualification of a loan of CHF 300,000 granted by the father to his daughter, which according to the "loan agreement" is repaid by an annual debt waiver of CHF 50,000. The lower courts classified the loan agreement as a sham transaction and the granting of the loan - in particular due to the lack of a repayment obligation - as a gift. The Federal Supreme Court upheld this qualification. It should be noted that a tax-free allowance of CHF 50,000 applied to gifts from parents to direct descendants in the canton of Vaud until December 31, 2024. As of January 1, 2025, this was increased to CHF 300,000. Dismissal of the appeal by the liable parties.
- Judgment of September 12, 2025 (9C_200/2025): VAT 2015-2017; the determination of the rental value of the letting of a vacation apartment to a related party is in dispute. The Federal Supreme Court considers that it is not clear why the practice of para. 7.1.2 MBI 17 should not be applied to a permanent rental of a vacation apartment. The lower court was right to decide that the annual net rental value also represents a convincing specification of the legal basis for a permanent rental. Dismissal of the FTA's appeal.
- Judgment of September 16, 2025 (9C_290/2025): State and communal taxes 2007-2021 (Vaud); In the present proceedings, the securing of additional tax claims against the taxpayer ordered by the cantonal tax administration of Vaud is disputed. Although the absolute statute of limitations has already partially expired for individual tax periods, the taxpayer is unable to explain why there is no tax risk in his case and why the lower court's findings of fact would be arbitrary. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of September 16, 2025 (9C_291/2025): State and communal taxes (Vaud) 2007-2021; application for recusal of an investigating judge in connection with Art. 30 para. 1 BV in conjunction with Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR guarantee of an independent and impartial judge: The complainant A. SA and its managing director and main shareholder A. had applied to the Federal Supreme Court to reject the competent investigating judge of the Cantonal Court of Vaud due to alleged bias. They justified this, among other things, with their repeated involvement in proceedings against them and with decisions that were always unfavorable to them. Pursuant to Art. 30 para. 1 BV in conjunction with Art. Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR, a judge may be recused if objective circumstances give rise to doubts about his or her impartiality. However, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that the mere fact that a judge has repeatedly ruled against a party does not constitute bias. Participation in earlier or parallel proceedings is also not sufficient, provided there are no objectively ascertainable circumstances that suggest a biased attitude. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
- Judgment of September 16, 2025 (9C_292/2025): State and communal taxes (Vaud) 2007 - 2021; application for recusal of an investigating judge in connection with Art. 30 para. 1 BV in conjunction with Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR guarantee of an independent and impartial judge: The party to the proceedings A. applied to the Federal Supreme Court to recuse the competent investigating judge of the Cantonal Court of Vaud on the grounds of alleged bias. She justified this, among other things, with her repeated involvement in proceedings against her and with decisions that were always unfavorable to her. Pursuant to Art. 30 para. 1 BV in conjunction with Art. Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR, a judge may be recused if objective circumstances give rise to doubts about his or her impartiality. However, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that the mere fact that a judge has repeatedly ruled against a party does not constitute bias. Participation in earlier or parallel proceedings is also not sufficient, provided there are no objectively ascertainable circumstances that suggest a biased attitude. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
