Decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (CW )

Overview of tax law decisions by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between June 1 and June 7, 2026:

Judgment of April 9, 2026 (A-5152/2023): Customs; Retroactive Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Tax (Meat Smuggling); A limited liability company (GmbH) received approximately 1,175 kg of meat products in 18 shipments from a dealer who imported them from Germany without filing a customs declaration. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed the limited liability company’s obligation to pay the additional duties pursuant to Art. 12(2) of the Administrative Offenses Act: As a purchaser aware of the foreign origin of the goods and generally willing to accept deliveries from the sole supplier, it was considered a customs debtor under Art. 70(2)(a) of the Customs Act—regardless of fault or knowledge of the missing declaration. According to established case law, a person who has expressed a general willingness to purchase goods of foreign origin to a third party is also considered a customs debtor; it is irrelevant whether the goods were already in Switzerland or still abroad at the time of the order. Dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
Judgment of April 9, 2026 (A-5184/2023): Customs; Additional Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Tax (Meat Smuggling); For the principles, see our article above on A-5152/2023 dated April 9, 2026. In the present case involving a large commercial buyer (44 deliveries, additional claim of CHF 268,848), the Federal Administrative Court upheld the obligation to pay the additional amounts under the specific circumstances that it was not the registered managing director but his son who placed the orders; The liability was attributed to the limited liability company (GmbH) through subsequent approval by posting the invoices. Dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
Judgment of April 13, 2026 (A-5187/2023): Customs; Additional Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Tax (Meat Smuggling); For the principles, see our article above on A-5152/2023 dated April 9, 2026. In the present case, a limited liability company (GmbH) received only three shipments (totaling 2,305 kg of veal breast) from the same dealer; the Federal Customs Administration (FCA) demanded an additional payment of CHF 56,980. It is noteworthy that the additional claim far exceeded the value of the goods, which was CHF 30,714. The Federal Administrative Court noted that the out-of-quota customs duty rate for meat was intentionally set to have a prohibitive effect and that the General Tariff has the force of law, meaning that the complainant’s objection regarding proportionality was unfounded from the outset. Dismissal of the complainant’s appeal.
Judgment of April 9, 2026 (A-5186/2023): Customs; Additional Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Tax (Meat Smuggling); For the principles, see our commentary above on A-5152/2023 of April 9, 2026. Parallel proceedings to A-5187/2023 of April 13, 2026, in which not the limited liability company (GmbH) but its managing director personally was held liable as the customs debtor and party obligated to make subsequent payment. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed that natural persons are also customs debtors under Art. 70(2)(a) of the Customs Act even if they acted as an organ of a legal entity. Dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
Judgment of April 13, 2026 (A-5208/2023): Customs; Additional Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Tax (Meat Smuggling); For the principles, see our article above on A-5152/2023 dated April 9, 2026. In the present case, the appellant raised the substantive objection that the seven shipments from 2021 consisted of legal “remnant stock” from the merchant’s closed retail store. The Federal Administrative Court rejected this: The investigation ruled out legal domestic purchases and regular imports for 2021, the quantities delivered exceeded any plausible amount of clearance stock, and the dealer had, according to his own statements, already sold his clearance stock to his successor. The complainant was therefore also deemed the customs debtor for these shipments—regardless of whether her managing director had acted in good faith in assuming they were clearance stock. A contingent request to offset the import tax against domestic VAT already paid was not substantively assessed due to lack of jurisdiction. Dismissal of the complainant’s appeal.
Judgment of April 9, 2026 (A-5182/2023): Customs; Additional Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Tax (Meat Smuggling); For the principles, see our article above on A-5152/2023 dated April 9, 2026. In the present case, involving only two shipments and a retroactive claim of CHF 4,007, the appellant argued that she had paid market prices and had not gained any advantage. The Federal Administrative Court held that an unlawful financial advantage is required only for persons who do not already qualify as customs debtors; as the first purchaser who had directly arranged the import, the appellant was liable for customs duties regardless of any potential price advantage. It is also noteworthy that the appellant had already rejected an initial defective shipment—which the Federal Administrative Court regarded as additional evidence of the dealer’s apparent unprofessionalism, which would have warranted further clarification regarding the origin and importation. Dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.
Judgment of February 23, 2026 (A-7822/2024): Value-Added Tax 2014–2018; Option; Services to Closely Related Persons; The first issue in dispute is whether A. AG validly opted for taxation in connection with the rental or leasing of the Hotel-Restaurant property beginning in the 2018 tax period and is thus entitled to input tax deduction and to relief from capital contribution tax. Furthermore, the offset applied by the FTA regarding real estate management services that A. AG is alleged to have provided to its shareholders during the 2016–2018 tax periods is contested. Finally, A. AG objects to the input tax adjustment applied to incoming invoices for the 2018 tax period. The lower court concluded that A. AG had not exercised a legally valid option under Art. 22(1) of the VAT Act through a declaration or an open tax statement. A. AG would have had to provide proof of a valid option, which it failed to do. Consequently, the input tax directly attributable to the leasing of the hotel-restaurant property in 2018 was excluded from the input tax deduction. A. AG, on the other hand, argues that, based on the option it believes was validly exercised, the input tax on investments and operating expenses for the property is deductible. Furthermore, it requests input tax relief for investments made prior to the option. However, the objection decision must also be upheld with regard to the denial of the input tax deduction and the tax relief on contributions concerning the hotel-restaurant property (tax period 2018). With regard to the administrative services, the FTA takes the view that A. AG provided services to its closely related shareholders in the 2016–2018 tax periods without invoicing them. Since neither fees were recorded for this nor were meaningful business documents submitted, the FTA was entitled to estimate the third-party price at its discretion. The estimate is based on the available documentation and on the fee rate that A. AG demonstrably also applied to third parties. This approach is not objectionable. Dismissal of the appeal by A. AG.
Judgment of February 23, 2026 (A-6772/2024): Value-Added Tax 2014–2018; Services to closely related parties; Loans; The present proceedings concern, first, additional tax assessments in connection with project planning and construction services that B. AG provided to its parent company, the (former) A.A., during the tax periods 2016–2018. Second, the dispute concerns additional tax claims in connection with payments received from Ms. W.W. during the 2018 tax period. In a first step, it must be clarified whether B. AG provided services to its parent company at a preferential price. In a second step, the calculation of the third-party price for the services provided must be addressed. Since no documents or supporting evidence regarding the services rendered were available, the lower court was required to determine the third-party price by approximation. In estimating the third-party price, the lower court relied on the cost-plus method, which is generally appropriate according to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court. In summary, the additional tax claims relating to the construction services provided by B. AG to its parent company at the hotel-restaurant are to be upheld. In summary, the appeal regarding the tax claim for the 2014 tax period (absolute statute of limitations) is to be granted. In all other respects, the appeal by B. AG is to be dismissed.
Judgment of March 13, 2026 (A-5833/2024): Additional assessment of spirits tax; the contract processor was required to declare the receipt of bulk and cask goods from the border into the tax warehouse, which was done in this case. The lower court does not explain why the appellant was required to declare the goods at issue—both as bulk or cask goods and as bottled goods—as having been received into its tax warehouse. Such a (dual) reporting obligation cannot be inferred from the applicable regulations. The extent to which the lower court actually considers the additional tax claim asserted in this case to be (still) unpaid is not entirely clear to the Federal Administrative Court. Since payment of the spirits tax results in the extinction of the additional tax claim, the matter must be remanded to the lower court to complete the factual record. Finally, the facts of the case are also incomplete with regard to the additional claim at issue, which relates to an inventory report as of December 31, 2019, that the lower court deemed to be incorrect. The taxpayer’s appeal is granted, and the case is remanded to the lower court.
Judgment of April 10, 2026 (A-5271/2021): Mineral oil tax; late payment interest; COVID-19 payment deferral; A company had received COVID-related payment deferrals for three mineral oil tax bills and had paid the amounts in each case before the extended deadlines expired. It assumed that the deferral would also protect it from late payment interest, which had been reduced to 0% until December 31, 2020, under a Federal Council emergency ordinance. The Federal Administrative Court upheld the claim for late payment interest of CHF 38,434.50: A payment deferral merely postpones the date of enforcement but does not alter the statutory due date and thus the start of the late payment interest period. The objection based on the protection of legitimate expectations also failed, as the FCA and the FDF had expressly stated on their website that, as of January 1, 2021, default interest would again be due even in cases where payment deferrals had been granted. Dismissal of the complainant’s appeal.
Judgment of May 26, 2026 (A-6493/2025): Household fee ; Order of August 20, 2025; The household fee is levied regardless of the type of device, and the spouses’ chosen matrimonial property regime and ownership rights to the receiving device are irrelevant. Dismissal of the fee payer’s appeal.
Judgment of May 26, 2026 (A-5389/2024): VAT 2017–2018; Statute of limitations and input tax deduction: If an (informal) submission is aimed at correcting the tax assessment, this is considered an act that interrupts the statute of limitations. If the supplier’s invoice merely states “incl. VAT,” this is not sufficient to claim input tax (VAT must be shown at least as an amount or rate). Partial granting of the appellant’s appeal.