Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between November 24 - 30, 2025:

  • ‍Judgmentof November 5, 2025 (9C_353/2025): Direct federal tax as well as state and municipal taxes 2010-2015 (Zurich); additional taxes; the dispute was whether the loan interest subject to additional tax was rightly assessed as a new fact and whether the amount was determined without legal error at the discretion of the lower court (the appeal regarding the fines imposed was suspended by the lower court). The supplementary tax proceedings were triggered by a report from the cantonal police that a criminal investigation for usury was being conducted against the husband of the liable party. It was undisputed that loan interest had been received but not declared. With regard to the amount of interest, the lower court found - contrary to the complainants' allegations - that interest had been paid on all loans. Based on the loan agreements, which were in the right, it assumed an average interest rate of 30 % p.a.. The complainants did not succeed in proving the obvious incorrectness of the estimated values determined in this way. Dismissal of the taxpayers' appeal.
  • Judgment of November 6, 2025 (9C_662/2024): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2019 (Zurich); In 2019, the complainant received pension payments (including children's pensions) of CHF 700,000 from the pension fund retroactively for the years 2011 to 2019 due to disability. The competent social welfare authority reclaimed the children's pensions in the same year. The complainant took legal action against this reclaim and the reclaim was legally confirmed in 2022. The appellant subsequently asserted a reason for revision for the 2019 tax period and applied for the reclaim to be deducted as an alimony payment. The Federal Supreme Court initially confirmed that the repayment of maintenance payments advanced by the local authority for minor children is deductible even if the advance payment and the repayment do not fall in the same tax year. However, the actual payment of the repayment and not the due date should be taken into account for the time link. The appellant could therefore not derive anything in his favor for the 2019 tax period. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Income Tax