Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court published between February 23 and March 1, 2026:
- Judgment of January 27, 2026 (9C_647/2024): State and municipal taxes and direct federal tax 2015 (St. Gallen); In the present case, a lawyer residing in Switzerland was a partner in two simple partnerships in the Principality of Liechtenstein. One of these, D, was set up for the joint management of three Liechtenstein trust companies in the form of Liechtenstein institutions ("external companies"). D's business activities were conducted exclusively through the foreign companies. The point of contention was whether the income generated from these activities should be taxed in Switzerland or treated as income from self-employment with a foreign permanent establishment. The Federal Supreme Court left the classification of the gainful activity largely open, but held that even if self-employment were assumed, D did not have a foreign permanent establishment, which is why there was no need to allocate tax abroad. The taxpayer's transparent view of the external companies (based on an analogy to a controlled foundation) did not prevail. Due to the organization he himself had chosen, the taxpayer cannot attribute the business operations of the external companies, which he (co-)controlled but which were structured as independent legal entities, to D as a business operation or permanent establishment abroad within the meaning of Art. 6 para. 1 DBG. Piercing the corporate veil can only be considered within the framework of the prohibition of abuse of rights and cannot be claimed to the advantage of the natural person ("any natural person who makes use of a legal entity must accept its legal independence"). Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
- Judgment of January 29, 2026 (9C_655/2025 and 9C_656/2025): State and municipal taxes 2015 and 2017-2018 (Solothurn); In the present case, the issue in dispute was whether the proceeds from the sale of a property located in the canton of Solothurn were correctly attributed to the canton of Solothurn for the 2015 tax period for taxpayers resident in the canton of Nidwalden. The Federal Supreme Court upheld the allocation, which was based on a report from the registry office to the tax administration based on the purchase agreements dated June 1 and December 3, 2015; the objections raised against this were found to be unfounded. The limited tax liability arises from § 85 para. 2 lit. c StG/SO and Art. 21 para. 1 lit. c and d StHG from the ownership or rights in rem to Solothurn real estate and, according to § 86 para. 2 StG/SO, includes the corresponding share of profits and capital. The capital gain was therefore attributable to the canton of Solothurn. In the absence of tax returns, a discretionary assessment was made for the 2017 and 2018 tax periods. Even in the subsequent appeal proceedings, she did not submit any documents that would have enabled a proper assessment or a review of the discretionary assessment. The taxpayer's further arguments were also unconvincing. The Federal Supreme Court ultimately confirmed that the tax administration had rightly decided not to hear the case due to failure to meet the requirements for a substantive judgment. The taxpayer's appeals were dismissed.
- Judgment of February 3, 2026 (9C_653/2025): State and municipal taxes 2014-2018 (Geneva); tax evasion; The case in question concerned a fine imposed on the taxpayer for negligent tax evasion due to the failure to declare a foreign life insurance policy. The taxpayers essentially argued that the foreign bank that had brokered the life insurance policy had confirmed that it was not taxable in Switzerland. They had therefore been misled. The Federal Supreme Court, on the other hand, held that the taxpayers should have realized that they could not simply rely on information provided by a foreign bank in a Swiss tax law matter. The taxpayers' appeal was dismissed.
- Judgment of February 4, 2026 (9C_434/2025): Additional customs duties; The appellant company rented vehicles from foreign suppliers and sublet them to customers in Switzerland. The vehicles were brought into Switzerland without being cleared through customs. As previously confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court (see judgment A-2724/2021 of June 6, 2025; see also our article of June 22, 2025), the Federal Supreme Court has now also confirmed the additional customs duties levied by the FTA. Neither the formal nor the substantive objections were successful. Dismissal of the appeal by the liable party.
- Judgment of January 28, 2026 (9C_222/2025): Municipal levy for communal facilities (Prilly, Vaud); Following a rezoning, the municipality of Prilly demanded a levy for communal facilities from the condominium owners' associations that had lodged the appeal. This levy is payable in the event of rezoning or upzoning, provided that there is a significant increase in value. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the legality of the levy. Neither the principle of legality nor the principle of taxation according to economic capacity had been violated. It was emphasized that the municipality had offered a deferral until the completion of a construction project, as there were currently no plans to exploit the new opportunities. The appeal by the liable parties was dismissed.
- Judgment of February 5, 2026 (9C_537/2025): Direct federal tax and state and municipal taxes for 2012 and 2014-2018 (Vaud); The issue in dispute was whether the tax administration and the lower court were right to deny the deduction for the son's claimed support payments to his mother living abroad. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the appellant son had failed to provide proof of the payments, which he claimed to have made via Western Union. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Non-occurrence:
Administrative Assistance:
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
