Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between November 10 - 16, 2025:
- Judgment of October 23, 2025 (9C_321/2025): State and municipal taxes 2016 - 2020 (Zurich); In this case, it was disputed where the place of effective management was located and whether the lower instance (VGer ZH) had violated the intercantonal ban on double taxation. The appellant - a holding company with its registered office in the canton of Zug - was of the opinion that it was subject to unlimited tax liability in this canton, even though it could hardly show any infrastructure costs there and the board of directors was provided to it by a group company with its registered office and office premises in the canton of Zurich. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the view of the lower court that the management of the company had in all probability been carried out in the canton of Zurich and rejected the canton of Zug's plea of forfeiture. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal against the Canton of Zurich, approval of the taxpayer's appeal against the Canton of Zug.
- Judgment of October 24, 2025 (9C_210/2025): State and municipal taxes Appenzell Ausserrhoden (2022); As part of the assessment for the 2022 tax period, the tax authorities set the market value of the property belonging to the taxpayers at CHF 1,107,500 and the imputed rental value at CHF 31,398 on December 19, 2023. On May 22, 2024, a new valuation was carried out due to a new building. The new values were lower than the values determined for the 2022 tax period. The taxpayers demanded a revision of the 2022 assessment. The Federal Supreme Court held that estimates or valuations of taxable properties are not in themselves suitable for creating new facts within the meaning of revision law. Similarly, the lack of "pro rata temporis" consideration of the imputed rental value - the taxpayers claimed that only 4 months should have been taken into account in the 2022 tax period - did not constitute a calculation error or clerical error. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
- Judgment of October 11, 2025 (9C_555/2024): VAT 2014 to 2018; education and insurance services exempt from tax, services abroad, majority of services (main and ancillary services, mixed use and limitation period for assessment. For a summary, please refer to the summary of the Federal Supreme Court ruling of October 11, 2025 (9C_556/2024). The facts of the case are essentially identical, as is the assessment by the Federal Supreme Court.
- Judgment of October 11, 2025 (9C_556/2024): VAT 2014 to 2018; educational and insurance services exempt from VAT, services abroad, majority of services (main and ancillary services), mixed use and limitation period for assessment. In this case, the taxable person offered training programs abroad, in some cases together with insurance cover. The insurance cover was invoiced separately to the travel participants. It was undisputed that the training programs qualified as educational services exempt from VAT (Art. 21 para. 2 no. 11 VATA), were eligible for the option (Art. 22 para. 2 let. a VATA), and that the place of supply was abroad (Art. 8 para. 2 let. c VATA) and that there was an entitlement to input VAT deduction in this respect (Art. 29 para. 1bis VATA). However, it was disputed whether the insurance cover was an independent supply (Art. 19 para. 1 MWSTG) or an ancillary supply to the training program (Art. 19 para. 4 MWSTG). Like the FAC and the FTA, the BGer came to the conclusion that it was an independent supply that was exempt from tax without the possibility of an option (Art. 22 para. 2 let. a MWSTG) and that there was no entitlement to input tax deduction in this respect (Art. 29 para. 1 MWSTG). The FTA corrected the input tax deduction using the "partial allocation of input tax" method. This means that the input tax was allocated directly to the training programs or insurance cover area as far as possible and the remaining input tax was allocated according to a turnover key. The taxpayers' objections to this method have already been rejected by the Federal Supreme Court because the complaint did not meet the qualified obligation to object and state reasons. However, with regard to the 2014 tax period, the absolute limitation period for assessment had expired (Art. 42 para. 6 MWSTG). The FSC only upheld the appeal to this extent. Partial upholding of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of October 22, 2025 (9C_389/2025): Real estate gains tax (Ticino); The subject of the dispute is the taxation of real estate gains pursuant to Art. 134 para. 1 StG TI. The taxpayer applied for extensive renovation costs to be taken into account for the purposes of property gains tax. The lower court shared the opinion of the tax authorities and found that the conditions for deducting these investment costs were not met. On the one hand, the costs were incurred after the sale of the property, then it was not clear from the purchase agreement that the seller had undertaken to bear these costs and, on the other hand, it was not proven that these works were value-enhancing investments. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal insofar as it is admissible.
Non-occurrence / write-off:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
