Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme CourtCW 43 - 2025)

Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between October 20 - 26, 2025:

Judgment of September 8, 2025 (9C_677/2024): Zurich state and municipal taxes 2013 to 2019 (subsequent tax proceedings) concerning a US irrevocable fixed interest trust; the disputed issue is how the trust assets are to be allocated for tax purposes for the purpose of determining wealth tax for the years 2013-2019. In the present case, wealth taxation on the capitalized value best takes into account the economic capacity of the liable parties. According to the trust deed, the settlor's aim was to ensure flexible support for his two sons and their descendants, adapted to the respective family circumstances, but not to make a fixed (one-half) allocation of the assets. The lower court rightly rejected the taxpayer's appeal for recalculation. Dismissal of the appeal by the Zurich Cantonal Tax Office.
Judgment of September 30, 2025 (9C_341/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2011-2015 (Ticino); the complainant's only complaint before the Federal Supreme Court was a violation of his right to be heard. According to him, he had not received a report from the tax authorities on the pecuniary benefits he had received. However, the complainant did not succeed in proving the alleged violation of the right to be heard. Dismissal of the complaint of the liable party.
Judgment of September 15, 2025 (9C_472/2024): State and municipal taxes 2022 (Grisons); the amount of the taxable imputed rental value is disputed in this case. The tax administration determined this on November 10, 2023 for the 2022 tax period based on an official audit valuation of the property on May 15, 2023. According to the practice of the tax administration and the Administrative Court of Graubünden, a new valuation is decisive if it is closer in time to the cut-off date than the old valuation. This was the case here. In the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court, this practice does not violate any constitutional rights of the taxpayers. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of September 26, 2025 (9F_19/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2020-2021 (Zurich); request for revision; the tax administration had qualified the additional amount paid and capitalized by the taxpayer A. AG when purchasing shares from its sole shareholder as a nonvaleur and debited the equity with a negative reserve. The Tax Appeal Court did not hear an appeal against this decision due to a lack of interest worthy of protection. The appeal lodged against this decision not to intervene was rejected by the Administrative Court and the Federal Supreme Court, see our article of July 27, 2025 on the ruling of July 3, 2025 (9C_187/2025). The appeal is now directed against this Federal Supreme Court ruling. Specifically, the taxpayer is requesting a revision of the decision, as the tax assessment ruling for the 2023 tax period proves that hidden reserves existed and that there was therefore no nonvaleur. In particular, it claims that there is a ground for appeal pursuant to Art. 123 para. 2 lit. a BGG. However, it is unable to demonstrate that this constitutes "decisive new evidence". Furthermore, in the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court, the taxpayer's arguments are inconsistent. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
Judgment of September 24, 2025 (9C_459/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2020-2021 (Geneva); at issue was the taxation of the imputed rental value of a villa which, according to the findings of the lower court, the appellant reserved for his own use or for use by his descendants. It was undisputed that the appellant had not lived in the villa himself during the two tax periods in dispute and that he had offered it for sale in 2017. However, during the tax periods in dispute, the civil law residence of the complainant's son was at the address of the villa. The complainant complained that it had been wrongly determined that he had not provided any evidence that his son had lived with his ex-wife and had continued his studies abroad. Before the Federal Supreme Court, however, the complainant was unable to justify any legal errors in this evidence. Dismissal of the appeal by the obligor.
Judgment of September 19, 2025 (9C_87/2025): Real estate gains tax (Zurich); transfer of a real estate portfolio as part of estate planning. It was disputed whether the real estate gains tax was to be deferred in accordance with § 216 para. 3 lit. d StG/ZH or whether the municipality had rightly refused to do so due to tax avoidance. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Administrative Court and denied tax avoidance: the properties professionally managed by the taxpayer already constituted a business before the transfer from private to business assets (see BGE 150 II 40 E. 6), so that the transfer merely replicated what was already in place. The transfer to the company limited by shares was made as part of factually justified estate planning and not solely to save tax. The tax deferral pursuant to § 216 para. 3 lit. d StG/ZH was therefore rightly granted. Dismissal of the municipality's appeal.
Judgment of September 25, 2025 (9C_5/2025): Military service tax 2019; the appellant, born in 1984, was naturalized in 2015 and was no longer liable to military service or replacement due to his age under the law at the time. After the age limit was raised to 37 as of January 1, 2019, he was classified as liable for military service and assessed CHF 3,768. Contrary to the statements in the complaint, it cannot be inferred from Art. 3 para. 2 WPEG that there is no obligation to pay compensation if recruitment no longer takes place due to age. Age discrimination is out of the question in the absence of active efforts to recruit at a later date. Dismissal of the complaint of the liable party.
Judgment of September 25, 2025 (9C_687/2024): Withholding tax 2019; refund of withholding tax on a dividend of B. GmbH in the amount of CHF 200,000. The dividend was declared on December 20, 2019 and, in the absence of a later date, was due immediately. The application of the sole owner for a refund of the withholding tax in the amount of CHF 70,000 was not submitted until January 10, 2023 and thus after the expiry of the three-year forfeiture period (Art. 32 para. 1 VStG). An asserted impediment due to withheld documents by the trustee was not recognized. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.