Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between February 2 and February 8, 2026:
- Judgment of January 13, 2026 (9F_25/2025): Direct federal taxes and state and municipal taxes 2020-2021 (Zurich); Request for review; This (second) request for review is directed against the judgment of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court of September 26, 2025 (see our article of October 26, 2025). The taxpayer's arguments that the Federal Supreme Court inadvertently failed to take into account significant facts contained in the files are (once again) unsuccessful. Rejection of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of January 19, 2026 (9C_96/2024) – scheduled for publication: Direct Federal Taxes and State and Municipal Taxes 2017 (Bern); In the present case, the issue in dispute was whether compensation received by a former executive employee of a federal office as a result of unlawful termination without notice should be classified as tax-exempt compensation within the meaning of Art. 24 lit. g DBG. The Federal Supreme Court found that, although the dismissal was objectively justified, the right to terminate the employment relationship had been forfeited due to the passage of time and the summary dismissal was therefore unlawful. However, the associated violation of personal rights did not reach the level of severity required for compensation. In the absence of compensation, the compensation paid could not be subsumed under Art. 24 lit. g DBG and was therefore taxable. The taxpayer's appeal was dismissed.
- Judgment of December 29, 2025 (9C_231/2024): State and municipal taxes 2013-2016 (Ticino); Intercantonal double taxation; The dispute concerned the intercantonal allocation of profits and capital to the Ticino permanent establishment of a company that was involved in the construction of the Gotthard Base Tunnel through its holdings in three consortia. Based on a ruling, the cantonal tax authorities involved (Ticino, Nidwalden, Uri, and Zurich) had accepted an indirect profit allocation based on wage costs. The Ticino cantonal tax administration later claimed that the facts of the case were different and that the method violated Art. 127 para. 3 of the Federal Constitution. Instead, the profits should be allocated according to the length of the railway line built. The Federal Supreme Court rejected this position and confirmed that the profit allocation provided for in the ruling based solely on the total wage bill was in accordance with federal law. It was therefore not necessary to examine the protection of legitimate expectations. The appeal by the taxpayer was upheld.
- Judgment of January 13, 2026 (9C_702/2024): State and municipal taxes 2017–2019 (Zurich); The main issue in this case was the taxpayer's primary tax domicile. The Zurich Cantonal Tax Office argued that the taxpayer had not effectively moved his residence to the canton of Zug for tax purposes and had also violated his obligations to cooperate, which is why it could rightly invoke the natural presumption of continued tax liability in the canton of Zurich. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed this view. In the canton of Zurich, he had a 129 m² apartment, while in the canton of Zug he only had a room with a shower/WC and shared use of the kitchen. The appeal by the Zurich cantonal tax office was upheld.
- Judgment of December 30, 2025 (9C_209/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes 2016-2018 (Ticino); Free increases in nominal value are subject to income tax on private assets. Since the criteria for share trading (self-employment) are met in this case, the shareholding in question qualifies as private assets. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
