Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between October 12 and October 18, 2026:
- Judgment of September 14, 2026 (9C_375/2026): State and Municipal Taxes for 2022–2023 (Fribourg); Request for Tax Waiver: Due to his difficult financial situation (unemployment, divorce, and receipt of social assistance), the taxpayer requested a full waiver of his state and municipal taxes for the years 2022 and 2023, which had previously been only partially waived. In particular, he argued that a simple comparison of income and recognized living expenses was insufficient and that his actual economic circumstances should also have been taken into account. The Federal Supreme Court, however, held that an additional examination of whether the surpluses calculated on paper were actually and permanently available—taking all factual circumstances into account—was not necessary. Anyone who, despite having available funds, fails to set aside reserves for taxes during the relevant tax period does not qualify for the waiver. A subsequent deterioration in financial circumstances is irrelevant in this regard. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
- Judgment of September 9, 2026 (9C_448/2025): Federal Direct Tax and Cantonal and Municipal Taxes for 2021–2023 (VD); The dispute concerns the tax residency of spouses A. and B. for the tax periods 2021–2023. The spouses held a residence permit in Panama and had left the country in the spring of 2020 to travel to Switzerland in order to avoid the lockdown restrictions imposed in Panama in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, to get vaccinated in Switzerland, and to access the Swiss healthcare system. A. had left Switzerland on October 21, 2021, to consult with doctors in the U.S. and stayed in Panama for only a few weeks before returning to Switzerland at the end of November 2021. During the same period, B. also consulted a doctor in Panama, as she did in 2022 and 2023. With regard to their places of residence, the Cantonal Court found that the villa in the canton of VD, which they owned, had a living area of 149 m² with a terrace and a garden with a swimming pool, and that in Panama they lived in a 121 m² apartment with a terrace and various amenities, which they were free to use but did not own. As for their personal circumstances, the spouses had only their only daughter—a close relative—living in the immediate vicinity of the villa, while their friends lived primarily in the United States and Panama. Furthermore, the Cantonal Court found that the spouses refused to produce their credit card statements. Based on these facts, the Cantonal Court concluded that their tax residence for the 2021 tax year was in Switzerland. Nor were they able to demonstrate that they had a predominant presence in Panama for the years 2022 and 2023, and they again refused to submit their credit card statements for those years as well. The taxpaying couple’s appeal was dismissed.
Non-occurrence / write-off:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
