Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between April 6 and 12, 2026:
- Judgment of March 25, 2026 (A-3704/2024): VAT 2017–2019; input tax deduction; the issue in dispute is whether Company A is entitled to deduct input tax. Input tax deduction requires that the VAT was clearly invoiced to the recipient of the service and actually paid. The disputed invoices merely contained the notation “TTC” (“Toutes taxes comprises”) without specifying a tax rate or tax amount; the passing on of the tax is therefore not proven. Subsequent confirmations from former board members and requested witness examinations are insufficient as evidence, especially since the companies in question had been deleted from the commercial register or dissolved, and the information could not be verified. The burden of proof lies with the taxpayer. Dismissal of Company A’s appeal.
- Judgment of March 24, 2026 (A-4432/2025): Value-Added Tax (2018–2022); Consideration or subsidy; the issue in dispute is whether the implementation costs paid by the federal government (Art. 43(3) ELV) for the provision of individual financial support (IU) under Art. 17 et seq. ELG are to be classified as consideration or as a subsidy within the meaning of Art. 18(2)(a) MWSTG. The FTA charged the taxpayer CHF 73,181.90 for the tax periods 2018–2022, as the taxpayer performed a public task delegated by the federal government, was bound by detailed instructions, and received the implementation costs only upon proof of the actual expenses incurred. The taxpayer argued that it had neither been commissioned by the legislature nor was it acting within the framework of an outsourcing of a federal task. The Federal Administrative Court held that Art. 17 et seq. of the Federal Act on the Promotion of Social Integration (ELG) do not oblige the Pro organizations to provide income support, but merely regulate the rules for the use of voluntarily collected federal funds. Art. 112c para. 2 of the Federal Constitution does not oblige the federal government to pay IU, but only to provide financial support for nationwide initiatives. The federal government itself is not obligated to provide the benefit and therefore cannot “outsource” a task. The detailed rules governing the use of funds serve to ensure appropriateness, not to establish a contractual relationship. The taxpayer’s appeal was upheld.
- Judgment of December 29, 2025 (A-7585/2024): Obligation to Pay (Customs Duties and Value-Added Tax); the issue in dispute is whether X is obligated to pay back taxes on incorrectly declared imports of sunflower oil. The Federal Administrative Court finds that the oil was in fact refined but was wrongly declared as unrefined. X. was the principal instigator of the imports and is therefore considered the customs debtor, regardless of his position in the company. The obligation to pay the duties retroactively exists regardless of fault or personal benefit. A claim for protection of legitimate expectations is denied, as the tariff information was based on inaccurate data. Dismissal of X.’s appeal.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
