Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between November 3 - 9, 2025:
- Judgment of October 17, 2025 (9C_53/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2020 (Graubünden); offsetting of a partial write-down of a non-valuable item by the cantonal tax administration. Like the lower court, the Federal Supreme Court did not accept the substantive claim of the taxpayer GmbH that the partial write-off should be recognized as a business-related expense. Furthermore, the limitation period for assessment had not yet expired. Dismissal of the appeal of the taxpayer GmbH insofar as it could be upheld.
- Judgment of October 11, 2025 (9C_352/2025): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2017 - 2018 (Vaud); At issue in this case is the taxation of spouses A. and B. in the tax years 2017 - 2018. The spouses complained about several items in the assessment, some of which were not substantiated. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal insofar as it is admissible.
- Judgment of October 11, 2025 (9C_359/2025): Direct federal tax and cantonal and communal taxes 2011 - 2018 (Vaud); A. and B. left Switzerland in 2006 and had A.'s occupational pension paid out. In 2011, they returned to Switzerland and on November 30, 2020, they reported an undeclared bank account for the years 2011 - 2018 to the tax authorities. In the voluntary declaration, they essentially stated that this was the remaining money left over from the lump-sum benefit from the pension plan. They argue that no additional tax should be levied as this money has already been taxed. The lower court's argument that the corresponding capital has been withdrawn from the pension scheme and the transfer has been made to the taxpayers' assets and they can therefore dispose of it freely is not objectionable. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
- Judgment of October 18, 2025 (9C_473/2025): State and communal taxes 2015 (Aargau); recusal and inspection of files; The complainant demanded that the tax commissioner responsible for her recuse herself and that she be granted access to the files on the premises of the cantonal tax office. She did not take up the offer to inspect the files on the premises of the municipal tax office. The request for recusal was rejected due to the lack of a specific reason for recusal. The cantonal instances denied a violation of the right to inspect files and confirmed the rejection of the recusal request. The Federal Supreme Court supported this assessment. In doing so, the Supreme Court confirmed the practice that the inspection of files can be carried out by an authorized person and therefore there is no entitlement to electronic file inspection. Dismissal of the complaint of the obligated party.
- Judgment of October 22, 2025 (9C_435/2025): Direct federal tax as well as state and municipal taxes 2013 (Valais); denial of justice; the issue in dispute was the processing time of an appeal regarding first-instance proceedings concerning the judicial annulment of a debt enforcement procedure relating to a tax debt for direct federal tax 2013 (liquidation profit). The Federal Supreme Court did not consider the time between the last investigative act at the end of February 2025 and the judgment announced for November/December to be an excessive duration of the proceedings. Dismissal of the appeal by the liable party.
- Judgment of October 26, 2025 (9C_525/2025): Property gains tax 2021 (Zurich); According to the Federal Supreme Court, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich was right not to hear the appeal. A notice of appeal must contain an application and a statement of grounds. In the event of an insufficiently substantiated appeal, it must grant a party that is not legally qualified or not legally represented a grace period for improvement. However, such a procedure is unnecessary if a party with legal knowledge or legal representation lodges an appeal. The appellants had practically repeated in full what had already been said (Tax Appeal Court) without substantively dealing with the appeal decision. Competent persons can be expected to submit appeals in the correct form, which is why a grace period can only be granted to them in exceptional cases, while less stringent requirements apply to laypersons. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
