Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between March 31 and April 6, 2025:

  • Judgment of March 19, 2025 (A-1141/2024): Imports of biodiesel; party compensation; According to the general practice of the Federal Administrative Court, hourly rates for lawyers of up to CHF 360 can be awarded without this requiring any particular complexity of the proceedings. Due to the complexity of the case, the increase of the hourly rates to CHF 400 is justified. Partial approval of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of March 21, 2025 (A-5747/2022): VOC levy; subsequent claim from January 2016 - 2020; The dispute is whether A. AG is obliged to pay the VOC incentive tax or the VAT due on it for the products concerned, or whether the contested decision on the obligation to pay is lawful. A. AG was entitled to assume in good faith that it had accounted for all quantities of VOCs duly declared upon importation in the VOC balance sheets. However, insofar as the appellant claims that, based on the letters, it was also entitled to rely on the fact that its approach with regard to all customs declarations was correct, it cannot be accepted. As explained by the lower court, the appellant falsely declared various imports of goods containing VOCs as non-VOC-containing. With regard to the disputed imports of LCO, LVN and propane, it failed to properly declare the imported quantities of VOCs and thus failed to comply with its declaration obligations. The lower court rightly demanded the corresponding VOC duties and import tax from the appellant. Partial upholding of the appeal of A. AG.
  • Judgment of March 24, 2025 (A-5742/2023): Customs; application for rectification; The dispute is whether A. AG can have the export assessment decisions of the BAZG corrected on the basis of Art. 59 para. 4 ZG. Since the authorization for the commitment procedure is not linked to an obligation to re-export, this procedure is not necessarily a two-dimensional trade transaction in which import and export are linked from the outset, contrary to the statements of A. AG. Consequently, there is no justification for applying the correction option under Art. 59 para. 4 ZG by analogy. Art. 34 para. 3 ZG, i.e. with the timely submission of an application to amend the assessment decision issued, is the only possibility of correction for customs declarations already accepted in connection with the commitment procedure. Dismissal of the appeal of A. AG.
  • Judgment of March 21, 2025 (A-3092/2023): Withholding tax; monetary benefits; joint and several liability; The now liquidated B. AG, which has since been liquidated, indirectly provided benefits to the complainant, who was the sole shareholder, via companies held by him in the British Virgin Islands and in the United Arab Emirates, without B. AG having received any consideration (not even indirect consideration) from the complainant. The FTA rightly based the claim for withholding tax of around CHF 3 million asserted against the complainant on Art. 12 para. 1 and 2 VStrR, as the objective facts of Art. 61 lit. a VStG are fulfilled. As B. AG has since been liquidated, offsetting into the hundred is out of the question from the outset. Dismissal of the appeal of the party liable for restitution.

Administrative assistance (incl. updates):

Updates:

Deletion:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Custom Duties
Withholding Tax
Other Taxes
Value Added Tax (VAT)
International Tax