Decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (CW - 2025 and CW - 2026)

Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between December 22, 2025, and January 4, 2026:

Judgment of November 19, 2025 (9C_54/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes for 2019 (Lucerne); The issue in dispute was whether the shareholding sold by the taxpayer, a self-employed lawyer residing in the canton of Nidwalden, qualified as business assets. The Federal Supreme Court did not hear the appeal concerning state and municipal taxes for 2019 due to the requested higher assessment, meaning that the court only had to rule on direct federal tax. The lawyer's field of activity consisted of advising and assisting foreign private clients and companies with a focus on international, cross-border tax planning. The purpose of the company in question was, in particular, to carry out fiduciary and auditing mandates. Between 2013 and 2018, around one third of the appellant's turnover on average consisted of fees from the sold company. Against this background, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed the technical and economic connection between the participation and self-employment and denied any breach of trust on the part of the tax authorities. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of November 25, 2025 (9C_228/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2016-2017 (Zurich); The issue in dispute was whether the lower court had rightly confirmed the existence of new facts justifying the assessment of additional taxes. In this regard, the appellant argued that, contrary to the position of the tax assessment authority, he had already submitted the relevant bank documents as part of the ordinary assessment procedure. The appellant was unable to substantiate that the lower court's finding that the bank documents were not in the tax files was incorrect. The Federal Supreme Court also did not allow the additional travel expenses claimed to be deducted, as these had no discernible connection to the reason for the additional tax assessment. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of December 4, 2025 (9C_728/2024): Import duties ; The issue in dispute and to be examined is whether the lower court acted in accordance with federal law in assuming that the domestic transport operations carried out by A. are subject to general customs, value added tax, and heavy vehicle tax obligations. The moment a foreign transport company allows passengers from a bus arriving from abroad to disembark in Switzerland and board another bus belonging to a foreign transport company for the purpose of continuing their journey to a Swiss destination, an unauthorized domestic journey begins with the second bus. As the coaches in question were imported by A. under the temporary use procedure and therefore no import duties were paid, federal law was violated. Dismissal of A.'s appeal.
Judgment of December 9, 2025 (9C_482/2025): Cantonal and municipal taxes 2024 (Fribourg); The dispute concerns whether the Cantonal Court was right to partially uphold the appeal lodged by spouses A. and B. regarding the income used to determine the couple's tax rate. The argumentation of the Fribourg Tax Administration is not valid, as it is limited to the somewhat contradictory assertion that the Cantonal Court arbitrarily failed to take its tax assessment into account, while at the same time claiming that the amounts determined as income by the lower courts correspond to the amounts stated in this assessment. The appeal by the tax administration is dismissed insofar as it is admissible.
Judgment of December 3, 2025 (9C_21/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2011-2012 (Zurich); The issue in dispute was whether the lower court had rightly dismissed the appeal filed after the deadline had been extended and had not considered the appeal originally filed due to insufficient grounds. According to the appellant, the latter had not been printed in full due to an IT error and contained twenty blank pages. However, the subsequently submitted appeal was not merely a new printout of the original appeal, but a substantially revised legal document. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the lower court had therefore ruled in accordance with federal law. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of December 9, 2025 (9C_522/2025): Value added tax 2015-2019; In the present case, it was disputed to whom the entry and registration fees paid by the participants in the tournament series were attributable for value added tax purposes. The appellant organizes an annual Switzerland-wide tennis tournament series and was of the opinion that, as a direct representative within the meaning of Art. 20 para. 2 MWSTG, it merely provided a booking platform for the individual tennis centers. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision that the appellant acted as a service provider vis-à-vis the participants, justifying its decision on the grounds that it was the appellant who coordinated and supervised the tournament series, determined the venues and dates, and had its own sponsors appear at the tournaments, whereas the tennis centers essentially provided their tennis courts, which is why the entry and registration fees in question within the meaning of Art. 20 para. 1 MWSTG were attributable to the appellant. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of December 17, 2025 (9C_513/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2010-2017 (Geneva); The dispute concerned whether the costs of hunting trips abroad were correctly added to the taxable profit of the appellant company in the additional tax assessment procedure and whether a fine for tax evasion was correctly imposed. The appellant, which operated as an asset management company, was unable to demonstrate before the Federal Supreme Court that the lower court had erred in law in considering the costs in question to be not commercially justified. The company's appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of December 17, 2025 (9C_521/2025): Direct federal tax and cantonal and municipal taxes 2010–2013 (Geneva). The subject of the legal dispute is the fees for managing a fund. The lower court found that B. SA had organized the fund management through offshore companies that had no verifiable operational infrastructure. As a result, management fees that would normally have been taxable in Switzerland were not taxed here. B. SA had thus created a system that enabled the transfer of income generated by the structures acting as administrators of Fund C to persons closely associated with it. This fulfilled the first requirement for tax evasion. With regard to the second prerequisite, it emerged that the only plausible reason for the chosen structure was that the profits generated from the management activities were not taxed in Switzerland, but only the profits from the consulting activities. Dismissal of the appeal by the taxpayer B. SA.
Judgment of November 28, 2025 (9C_642/2024): Military service exemption; The appellant, who was naturalized in 2017 at the age of 31, argues that he was not (or no longer) able to perform military service under the law in force at the time of his naturalization. The subsequent introduction of an extended substitute obligation would retroactively alter the basis for naturalization in an impermissible manner. The Federal Supreme Court has already repeatedly ruled on the question of the temporal scope of the newly introduced age limit under Art. 3 WPEG. In particular, it has considered that Art. 3 WPEG is not applicable if the substitute year ended before this provision came into force on January 1, 2019. On the other hand, according to case law, there is no inadmissible retroactive effect if the new law is applied to subsequent substitute years. Dismissal of the complainant's appeal.
Judgment of December 17, 2025 (9C_570/2025): VAT 2014-2018; classification of contributions to a charitable foundation (donation or payment for a taxable service; publicity services) and cost allocation. In the present case, it was primarily the FTA that lodged an appeal (without success). Foundation A aimed to promote business projects in developing and emerging countries and received considerable donations for this purpose from various categories of wealthy donors. Depending on their category, donors received one or more of the following benefits from the foundation: an overnight stay in a luxury hotel, in some cases with a companion, mention as an associate or partner on the website, membership of the foundation board, and the opportunity to participate in trips to countries where the foundation's projects are located (but at their own expense). Like the lower court (but contrary to the FTA), the Federal Supreme Court concluded that donations were involved in this case. The Federal Supreme Court agrees with the FTA that, as a rule, remuneration for a service is involved if the consideration for a donation exceeds what is customary in society, even if, objectively speaking, there is an economic imbalance between the donation and the consideration. If this amount is exceeded, it can generally be assumed that the donation was made in return for this consideration. What can be considered socially customary depends on the circumstances of the individual case. In this case, the foundation wanted to generate large individual donations and addressed an "exclusive" clientele with close ties to the business world. In this context, the benefits granted still appear to be socially customary. Contrary to the FTA's opinion, the payment made by another charitable foundation established by the same person was also considered to be non-remunerative. The considerable donations from five legal entities, which were linked on the homepage and named as "partner organizations" with their logos, had to be assessed differently. Contrary to the FTA's opinion, however, this was not remuneration for advertising, but for a tax-exempt advertising service (VAT Act 21 (2) (27)). The taxpayer only lodged an appeal with regard to the allocation of costs. Although she was 95% successful with regard to the amount in dispute, the lower court only treated her as 60% successful. According to the Federal Supreme Court, the lower court does have considerable discretion in its assessment. However, it clearly exceeded this discretion. The Federal Supreme Court refers the matter back to the lower court for a ruling on the costs and compensation. Dismissal of the appeal by the FTA. Upholding of the taxpayer's appeal.