Overview of tax rulings issued by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court between January 5 and 11, 2026:
- Judgment of December 17, 2025 (A-3719/2024): Withholding tax; The issue in this case was whether there was a right to a refund of withholding tax or whether this had to be denied due to the recipient's lack of entitlement to use the funds within the meaning of Art. 21 para. 1 lit. a VStG or possible tax evasion within the meaning of Art. 21 para. 2 VStG. The appellant received a dividend from its subsidiary – both companies with their registered office in Switzerland – which it had acquired in the same year from the former sole owner based in Hong Kong, and had to pay withholding tax on this dividend – the application for the reporting procedure was not approved by the FTA – which it did not receive a refund for. The Federal Administrative Court did not make a definitive ruling on the question of whether the de facto obligation to pass on the tax – the appellant had agreed tranche payments (purchase on loan) with the former sole owner in the purchase agreement, which corresponded exactly to the total amount of the dividend received – constituted a contractual obligation to pass on the tax in the present case and whether the appellant should therefore be denied the right of use. as it – in confirmation of the lower court – considered all criteria for tax evasion (in this case, the so-called "old reserve practice") to be fulfilled, since the seller was unable to prove her residence in Hong Kong, particularly at the time of the sale to the appellant, and was therefore not herself entitled to the agreement, which is why the lack of a refund position was intended to be improved by the chosen, unusual legal structure (objective characteristic) (subjective characteristic) and this would also have been achieved (effective characteristic), the FTA would have allowed the refund to the appellant. Dismissal of the appeal against the FTA.
- Judgment of August 5, 2024 (A-5881/2023): Withholding tax; service of a decision; decision of December 21, 2018; Since A. did not exercise the necessary diligence in pursuing the withholding tax proceedings in question in the present case, it cannot rely on the actions taken in this context to obtain a review of the contested decision. This prompts the Federal Administrative Court to declare the appeal of October 26, 2023, and the request for review of May 13, 2024, inadmissible.
Reprint:
- Judgment of September 23, 2025 (A-5105/2022): Emissions tax; The issue in dispute was whether the FTA had been right to refuse to waive the emissions tax on the grounds of insufficient capitalization. It was undisputed that the company in question was in need of restructuring and that the subsidy in question had offset the existing losses. The latter were attributable to a fine imposed by the DoJ because the company in question had violated US sanctions regulations by facilitating or carrying out transactions that were prohibited by said sanctions. In doing so, the bank had systematically and wilfully disregarded the sanctions regulations. The FTA concluded that the fine imposed on the company was foreseeable and that the losses incurred were the result of reckless risk-taking. According to the FTA, this meant that the requirement of sufficient capitalization was not met. This assessment was confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court. Dismissal of the appeal by the company liable for tax. In this context, we also refer to our article dated October 5, 2025.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
