Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between December 1 and 7, 2025:
- Judgment of November 3, 2025 (9C_568/2025): Customs duties; In the main proceedings, the Federal Administrative Court dealing with the matter is faced with a question relating to declaratory decisions. The applicant considers that the conditions of Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a BGG are met (appeals against independently issued preliminary and interim decisions are admissible if they could cause irreparable harm) and generally complies with the obligation to state reasons. She fears a significant loss of income and, if necessary, the cessation of operations in Germany if the proceedings are not concluded before January 1, 2028. With regard to the procedural motion filed in the lower court proceedings that the appeal should be granted suspensive effect, the applicant originally argued that it "urgently needed planning security," otherwise "operations would have to be discontinued and horrendous damage would be expected." Refusal to grant suspensive effect only fulfills the requirements of an irreparable legal disadvantage in very rare cases. This is not the case here. The appeal is dismissed.
- Judgment of November 11, 2025 (9C_512/2025): Household fee pursuant to Art. 69ff. RTVG; The dispute concerns whether the Federal Administrative Court violated the law by not admitting the appeal insofar as it complained about the quality of SRG programming. The appeal by the party liable for payment is unfounded and must be dismissed.
- Judgment of November 5, 2025 (9C_301/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2010 (Geneva); The issue in this case is whether the levying of additional tax in connection with license fees was permissible. The central question is whether the tax administration could have known at the time of assessment that the paying and receiving companies were related parties. According to the Federal Supreme Court and contrary to the opinion of the lower court, the cantonal tax administration must have known that the two companies were related parties, particularly since it had already audited the amount of the license fees in 2000 for the 1995–1998 tax periods. The taxpayer's appeal was upheld.
- Judgment of November 17, 2025 (9C_370/2025): Value added tax 2015-2017; purchase tax; A AG, based in Switzerland, purchased breeding rights (covering rights) for foreign stallions from persons based abroad in order to subsequently resell them to other persons based abroad (see also our article of June 22, 2025 on the Federal Administrative Court ruling A-4643/2023). With regard to the acquired breeding rights, the FTA was of the opinion that these were purchases of services subject to withholding tax (Art. 45 para. 1 lit. a in conjunction with Art. 3 lit. e and Art. 8 para. 1 MWSTG). A AG, on the other hand, was of the opinion that these service fees were not subject to withholding tax. It initially viewed its contractual role as indirect representation. It then took the view that the content of the contract was a supply within the meaning of Art. 3(d) MWSTG and not a service. Subsidiary, it classified the coverage rights as derivative financial instruments exempt from tax. The Federal Administrative Court rejected this argument and confirmed the position of the FTA. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the lower court. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
