Decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (CW )

Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between April 13 and 19, 2026:

Judgment of April 1, 2026 (A-1006/2024): Customs duties and value-added tax; Smuggled meat; interest on arrears for import tax (see also the following judgments A-791/2024, A-792/2024, A-1005/2024, and A-1069/2024); A food retailer and her butcher, who was responsible for purchasing the meat, are held jointly and severally liable for import duties on meat imported without customs clearance. In addition, the court clarifies a follow-up question regarding interest on arrears: The Federal Administrative Court (BAZG) had imposed higher interest rates on the butcher than on the limited liability company (GmbH) because only the latter was entitled to input tax deduction. The Federal Administrative Court disagrees: “Importer” within the meaning of the Interest Rate Ordinance is not every customs debtor, but only the person who actually received the meat and had economic control over it—in this case, the supplier. Since neither the GmbH nor the butcher qualify as importers in this sense, neither owes default interest on the import tax. Partial approval in favor of the butcher; otherwise, dismissal of the appeals.
Judgment of April 1, 2026 (A-801/2025): Value-Added Tax 2021–2022; Brokerage Services; The issue at hand was whether the brokerage services provided in the financial sector were exempt from tax or subject to tax. The taxpayer referred customers to financial service providers in exchange for a commission, received services from foreign sub-brokers for this purpose, and was of the opinion that these services were exempt from tax within the meaning of Art. 21(2)(19)(a–e) of the VAT Act. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed this and held—contrary to the opinion of the lower court—that there was neither a service relationship between the taxpayer and the end customers nor did the taxpayer have a self-interest in the content of the underlying transaction. The latter was not established merely because there was an interest in earning a commission and thus in the conclusion of the underlying transaction. The taxpayer’s appeal was upheld.
Judgment of March 24, 2026 (A-791/2024): Customs duties and value-added tax; liability for payment; smuggled meat (see also judgments A-792/2024, A-1006/2024, A-1005/2024, and A-1069/2024); A butcher shop purchased meat from the same supplier, some of which had been imported from abroad without paying customs duties. The Federal Administrative Court affirmed the joint and several liability for subsequent payment under Art. 12 VStrR: Given the prices that were significantly below market value (up to 58% cheaper) and the lack of origin information on the invoices, the butcher shop should have verified the origin of the meat—especially since it was also required to do so under food safety regulations. To determine the quantity of meat purchased without paying customs duties, the BAZG estimated the supplier’s inventory, always attributing legally sourced meat to the buyers first; only after this inventory was exhausted was subsequent meat considered to have been imported without paying customs duties. Dismissal of the appeal.‍
Judgment of March 24, 2026 (A-972/2024): Obligation to Pay Retroactive Duties and Taxes (Customs and Value-Added Tax); In the present case, the Federal Administrative Court had to determine whether the appellant (X. GmbH) owed retroactive customs duties and import taxes on the purchase of meat that had previously been imported into Switzerland without having been cleared through customs. The Federal Administrative Court referred to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, according to which a person who actually arranges for the import—for example, by ordering goods that they know or should know originate from abroad—is also considered a customs debtor. In the court’s view, the complainant should have had reason to critically question the origin of the meat given the prices, which were significantly below market value, and the lack of origin information on the invoices. Under these circumstances, the foreign origin should have been apparent to her. By placing the orders nonetheless, she is considered the principal under customs law and is liable for subsequent payment—regardless of whether the meat was already in Switzerland at the time of the order. Dismissal of the appeal. ‍
Judgment of March 24, 2026 (A-1005/2024): Customs and Value-Added Tax; Liability for Payment; Smuggled Meat (see also judgments A-1006/2024, A-791/2024, A-792/2024, and A-1069/2024); The same series of proceedings, this time concerning the carrier: Between September 2021 and March 2022, a courier had transported approximately 8,190 kg of meat and other foodstuffs from Germany to Switzerland on behalf of the supplier’s managing director without declaring them to customs. The courier disputed the start date of the smuggling trips as well as the transport of non-meat goods. The Federal Administrative Court (BVGer) based its findings of fact on the consistent and credible statements of the German supplier as well as the invoices issued by him; the contradictory and gradually revealed statements of the courier were deemed to be of little credibility. As the person who physically transported the goods across the border, he is automatically liable for customs duties under Art. 70(2) of the Customs Act—regardless of whether he knew that the customs formalities had not been completed. Dismissal of the appeal.‍
Judgment of March 31, 2026 (A-7215/2025): Value-Added Tax; Financial Brokerage Services (2015–2019); The issue at hand was whether the financial brokerage services in question were exempt from tax or subject to tax. The taxpayer assisted her clients in brokering mortgage loans and argued that her services were tax-exempt under Art. 21(2)(19)(a–e) of the VAT Act, whereas the lower court denied the existence of an independent brokerage activity and a lack of self-interest—and thus the tax exemption. The Federal Administrative Court affirmed the existence of an independent brokerage activity, as no indivisible service package could be identified. It affirmed the existence of a self-interest in a scenario where the appellant held a majority stake in the recipient of the services, but denied it in all other cases, particularly because an obligation to transfer assets pursuant to Art. 400(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR) does not in itself imply a self-interest. However, the tax claims relating to the 2015 tax period, which had not yet become final, were time-barred. Partial granting of the taxpayer’s appeal with respect to the 2015 tax period and regarding the tax-exempt services; dismissal of the appeal in all other respects.
Judgment of March 24, 2026 (A-1069/2024): Customs duties and value-added tax; obligation to pay; smuggled meat (see also judgments A-1006/2024, A-791/2024, A-792/2024, and A-1005/2024); Similar facts: A restaurant purchased approximately 3,107 kg of meat from the same supplier between September 2021 and March 2022, of which approximately 2,577 kg were classified as having been imported without customs clearance. The obligation to pay back taxes under Art. 12 VStrR is affirmed: The prices were on average 43% below the market price, and the establishment would also have been required under food law to know the origin of the meat—which it obviously did not, as its own statement showed. The motion to stay proceedings due to alleged bias on the part of BAZG staff is dismissed for lack of any substantiation. Dismissal of the appeal.
Judgment of February 25, 2026 (A-2822/2024): VAT (1st half of 2018 through 2nd half of 2021): Allocation of services, reverse charge: The Federal Administrative Court had to determine whether payments made by a Swiss sole proprietor to two foreign companies under so-called “profit-sharing agreements” should be classified as non-taxable profit shares or as taxable services and thus subject to the reverse charge. The court concluded that there was no simple partnership between the parties, but rather exchange agreements. The foreign companies provided services to the appellant for customer acquisition (finder’s fees) by inducing their own clientele to purchase structured financial products, which directly led to commission income for the appellant. The subsequent transfer of a portion of these commissions constituted consideration for these services and not a distribution of profits. Since the service contracts are to be classified as services provided for consideration by foreign companies to a service recipient domiciled in Switzerland, they are subject to the reverse charge tax pursuant to Art. 45 of the Swiss Value Added Tax Act (MWSTG). Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.