Decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (CW )

Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between March 9 and 15, 2026:

Judgment of February 26, 2026 (A-3599/2024):Radio and television reception fees; household license fee; decision of May 6, 2024; The issue in dispute is whether A. is required to pay the household license fee for the period from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022. He argues that the SRG is not fulfilling its service and information mandate. The lower court states that objections regarding the content of SRG programs have no bearing on this obligation to pay, as the household fee is owed regardless of the device used and without any conditions. The Federal Administrative Court also upheld this opinion. Dismissal of the appeal filed by A., who is liable for the fee.
Judgment of March 2, 2026 (A-962/2025): Radio and television reception fee; Household fee; Order of January 15, 2025; The issue in dispute is whether A. was liable to pay the household license fee for the period from January 1, 2019, to October 31, 2023. A. cannot present any grounds that would justify his exemption from paying the applicable fee. Dismissal of the appeal filed by A., who is liable to pay the fee.
Judgment of March 3, 2026 (A-3536/2025): Obligation to pay (customs duties, value-added tax, tobacco tax), Art. 12 VStrR; Between 2022 and 2024, A. purchased a total of 299 cartons of cigarettes from supplier B., who had imported them into Switzerland without paying customs duties. The Federal Customs Administration (BAZG) ordered A. to pay the evaded import duties of CHF 16,036.10 plus interest. A. argued that he should not be classified as the principal and had acted in good faith. According to the Federal Administrative Court, A. is to be classified as the principal (Art. 70(2)(a) of the Customs Act), as he had demonstrated a general willingness to accept the goods through 24 orders over a two-year period. A. knew or should have assumed that the goods originated from abroad (communications from the supplier, English warning notices, significantly lower prices). As the customs debtor, A. is jointly and severally liable for subsequent payment under Art. 12(2) of the Administrative Offenses Act, even without personal benefit. The good faith privilege applies only to indirect beneficiaries, not to customs debtors. Dismissal of A.’s appeal.
Judgment of March 2, 2026 (A-2485/2024): Withholding tax (benefit in kind / reporting procedure); The issue in this case was whether the transfer of the patient database to the sole shareholder without consideration constituted a benefit in kind and whether the reporting procedure applied. The appellant argued that the patient database was personal in nature and therefore attributable to her sole shareholder. The FTA attributed the patient database to the appellant—based on the direct tax ruling of the Federal Supreme Court 2C_1028/2019 of May 18, 2020, regarding the same facts (see our article of December 6, 2020). The gratuitous withdrawal met all four requirements of a monetary benefit, which is why withholding tax in the amount of CHF 60,550 plus default interest had been correctly levied. The Federal Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s decision and upheld the denial of the right to a notification procedure, as the forfeiture of the shareholder’s right to a refund within the meaning of Art. 23 VStG could not be ruled out. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.

Administrative assistance / updates: