Overview of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court’s tax law decisions published between November 2 and 8, 2026:
- Judgment of September 29, 2026 (9C_334/2026): Cantonal and municipal taxes (Geneva) and direct federal tax for 2010–2013; the dispute concerns the additional taxes and fines assessed for the tax periods 2010–2013. The dispute also concerns the respondent’s decision—upheld by the lower court—to deny the deduction of alimony payments made by the appellant during the tax periods 2011–2013. The court notes in this regard that the deduction of these payments is precluded because the payments were made to an account over which the appellant retained full control. As for the additional tax related to monetary benefits from the company that are subject to income tax for the appellant, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant remained the beneficial owner of the company’s shares. Nor can the appellant’s argument be upheld to the extent that he claims the fine should have been reduced by two-thirds pursuant to Art. 175(2) of the Federal Income Tax Act (DBG) and the corresponding provision under cantonal law. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
- Judgment of October 9, 2026 (9C_21/2026): Real Estate Supplementary Tax 2021–2024 (Vaud); Tax Exemption for SUVA; SUVA owns several properties in the canton of Vaud and was assessed for the years 2021 through 2024 for an annual supplementary tax of 1‰ of the assessed value of the properties owned by legal entities. It invoked the exemption from direct taxes under Art. 80 ATSG, whereas the Cantonal Court of Vaud classified the levy as an indirect tax, since it was designed as a guarantee and substitute levy for the transfer tax and would be partially refunded in the event of a subsequent sale subject to transfer tax. The Federal Supreme Court held that the classification of a levy is determined not by its purpose but by its nature. The taxable object of the supplementary tax is the legal entity’s real property and not a legal transaction; it is levied periodically, is not passed on to third parties, and is due regardless of a sale, which is why it must be considered a direct tax within the meaning of Art. 80 ATSG. Since the designated use of the real estate remained undisputed under Art. 80 ATSG, SUVA is exempt from the supplementary tax. The appeal filed by SUVA is granted.
- Judgment of October 13, 2026 (2C_571/2025) – scheduled for publication: Administrative assistance (DTA CH-FR); principle of specialty; The French tax authority requested banking and domicile information regarding an individual with an alleged residence in Switzerland, whom it suspected of being a tax resident of France. The Federal Administrative Court granted the request for administrative assistance but required the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) to inform the requesting authority that the information could only be used in proceedings against the person concerned; in response, the FTA appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, citing the update to the OECD Commentary on Article 26 of the OECD Model Tax Convention dated February 19, 2024. According to the updated commentary, transmitted information may also be used against third parties without the need to inform the requested state or seek its consent. The Federal Supreme Court upholds the personal dimension of the principle of speciality: The new interpretation of the commentary finds no basis in the wording of Article 26(2) of the OECD Model Tax Convention and Article 28(2) of the CH-FR , which is why a later version of the commentary is not authoritative. Furthermore, the practice of denying third parties party status in administrative assistance proceedings is based precisely on the fact that the information may not be used against them, and abandoning this principle would, in light of the right to be heard under Art. 29(2) of the Federal Constitution, result in an expansion of procedural rights and thus a slowdown in administrative assistance. Dismissal of the appeal by the FTA.
- Judgment of September 24, 2026 (9C_714/2025): State and Municipal Taxes as well as Direct Federal Tax 2020 (Zurich); Deduction of Contributions to a Foreign Pension Fund; A lawyer who had moved from Germany and was insured under the BVG in Switzerland voluntarily continued her insurance with the German pension fund for lawyers and claimed a deduction for contributions totaling approximately CHF 13,000. The Zurich Administrative Court denied the deduction, citing the benchmark of approximately 35% of gross salary as set forth in the SSK loose-leaf collection “Pension Plans and Taxes” (Case A.9.1.1, para. 2.2) and the failure to disclose the foreign pension coverage gaps. The Federal Supreme Court held that, in the case of multiple pension arrangements, reasonableness must be assessed for the arrangements as a whole and based on a model-based analysis of the pension plans, not on the basis of the individual case in the tax year. The lower court had failed to conduct this assessment and had also erroneously included AHV contributions in the statutory contributions, whereas the SSK loose-leaf collection, as a quasi-administrative ordinance, is not binding on the Federal Supreme Court. Increased obligations to cooperate solely due to foreign connections should be imposed with restraint within the scope of the AFMP. The taxpayer’s appeal is granted, and the case is remanded to the lower court.
- Judgment of October 7, 2026 (9C_689/2025): Value-Added Tax 2017–2018; The issue in this case was whether donations to a charitable foundation should be classified as taxable consideration (exchange of services within the meaning of Art. 18(1) of the Value-Added Tax Act) or as charitable contributions, and, if an exchange of services is deemed to exist, whether a distinction must be made between taxable and tax-exempt services. The appellant—a foundation dedicated to researching and combating certain diseases—received voluntary patron contributions and, for contributions above a certain minimum amount, provided patrons with a voucher for a health checkup that could be redeemed at pharmacies. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling and held that the contributions entitling the donor to a health check-up voucher should be classified as consideration for a taxable service, since there was a sufficient economic connection between the payment and the issuance of the voucher. It was irrelevant whether the voucher was actually redeemed, since the mere promise to cover the costs already constituted a realizable economic value. Nor was it decisive how much the foundation paid the pharmacies for conducting the health checkups. In the absence of corresponding evidence, the minimum contribution should not be divided into a taxable portion and a tax-exempt portion. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
Non-occurrence / write-off:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
