Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between March 16 and 22, 2026:
- Judgment of March 2, 2026 (A-2977/2025): Withholding tax (benefits in kind/reporting procedure); The issue in this case was whether the reporting procedure for benefits in kind could be invoked. The appellant was charged a monetary benefit for an undervalued sales price—sale of a company vehicle to a related party—as well as for unaccounted-for personal use, and withholding tax was levied on this amount. The appellant contended that she had not acted intentionally and had therefore not forfeited her right to a refund. The Federal Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s dismissal of the reporting procedure, reasoning that the reporting procedure is admissible only where there is a clear entitlement to a refund, which was not the case here, as the parties involved must have recognized the gross disproportion in the sales price and been aware of the obligation to account for the private portion. Thus, the appellant had already been informed in writing in the past by the Zurich Tax Office (KStA ZH) of the obligation to declare the use of company vehicles on the wage statement. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
- Judgment of February 27, 2026 (A-860/2024): Withholding tax (benefit in kind); In this decision, the Court had to determine whether the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) was correct in treating the transaction as a benefit in kind. In 2011, A. AG acquired shares in E. AG and F. AG, as well as various interests in transfer rights, from its shareholder C. for a total purchase price of CHF 7,900,000. C. had acquired the same assets privately in the same year for only CHF 1,190,000. The Federal Administrative Court upheld the FTA’s view that the acquisition of the shares by A. AG met all the requirements for a consideration of monetary value, and therefore the withholding tax in the amount of CHF 2,289,591.50 plus default interest had been correctly levied. Among other things, the private tax return submitted by shareholder C. was considered as evidence. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
- Judgment of February 27, 2026 (A-5128/2024): Stamp duty ; The issue in this case is how the duty is to be calculated pursuant to Art. 8(1)(c) of the Stamp Duty Act. Art. 8(1)(c) StG stipulates that, upon a change of ownership of the majority of equity interests, the tax is calculated at 1% of the net assets held by the company or cooperative at the time of the change of ownership, but at least on the par value of all existing equity interests. A. AG argues that the interpretation of Art. 8(1)(c) StG should not be limited to the literal wording but must be conducted comprehensively. Specifically, it calls for a teleological reduction of the wording regarding the subsidiary basis of assessment (calculation based on par value). The Federal Administrative Court shares the view of the lower court on this point and states that this provision is intended to be a simplification; therefore, it would not be expedient if, in every shell company transaction, it were first necessary to examine whether loss carryforwards exist and whether there are plans to write them off as part of a capital reduction. The interpretation of Art. 8(1)(c) StG leads to the conclusion that there are no valid reasons that would necessitate a deviation from the wording. Dismissal of the appeal by A. AG.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
