Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between June 8 and 14, 2026:

  • Judgment of May 26, 2026 (A-365/2026):Value-Added Tax 2019–2023; Direct Appeal; a hotel and spa operator filed a direct appeal with the Federal Administrative Court against a VAT adjustment concerning free admission for employees. The Federal Administrative Court held that a direct appeal is admissible only if the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) has already comprehensively addressed the matter and issued a decision with detailed reasoning. Since the FTA itself asserted that further clarification was needed, the matter had not been conclusively resolved. The direct appeal was dismissed; the case was referred back to the FTA for the objection procedure to be conducted.
  • Judgment of May 27, 2026 (A-5828/2024): Import tax; interest on arrears (Art. 12 VStrR); a Liechtenstein company imported several paintings by an artist under the temporary admission procedure (ZAVV) (see also the judgment below from the same date). The company argued that the import was made exclusively for exhibition purposes. The Federal Customs Administration (BAZG), however, found that an intention to sell already existed at the time of import and that the works should therefore have been declared for “sale of uncertain nature.” Furthermore, the exhibitions took place only in a private setting, and the paintings were declared with a significantly undervalued commodity value. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed that the requirements for temporary admission had not been met. The incorrect customs declarations resulted in a shortfall in import tax and constituted the objective elements of tax evasion under Art. 96(4)(a) of the VAT Act. Pursuant to Art. 12 of the Administrative Offenses Act (VStrR), the court affirmed the obligation to pay back import taxes in the amount of CHF 81,078.05 as well as late payment interest of CHF 19,768.45. The interest waiver did not apply, as the company used the net tax rate method for accounting during the relevant period and could not have claimed the import tax as input tax. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
  • Judgment of May 27, 2026 (A-5827/2024): Import tax; interest on arrears (Art. 12 VStrR); an artist imported several paintings into Liechtenstein under the temporary admission procedure (ZAVV). The Federal Administrative Court (FAC) determined—in accordance with the parallel decision A-5828/2024 (see above)—that an intention to sell already existed at the time of importation and that the works should therefore have been declared as “for sale at an unspecified price.” Furthermore, the exhibitions took place in a private setting, and the declared values of several paintings were clearly too low. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed that the requirements for temporary admission were not met. The incorrect customs declarations resulted in underpayment of import tax and constituted tax evasion under Art. 96(4)(a) of the VAT Act. Based on Art. 12 of the Administrative Offenses Act, the court affirmed the obligation to pay the tax retroactively as well as the obligation to pay default interest. It further held that the appellant was to be classified as the customs debtor. The objection based on the statute of limitations was unsuccessful. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
  • Judgment of June 1, 2026 (A-1034/2025): Radio and Television License Fee 2019–2024; Household license fee; the complainant argued that he had spent most of his time abroad, had not operated any devices capable of receiving broadcasts, and had submitted a request for exemption from the license fee obligation (“opting out”) in a letter dated January 10, 2019. The Federal Administrative Court held that the household license fee is payable regardless of the presence of equipment and that an “opt-out” must have been requested using the designated form. The letter dated January 10, 2019, did not meet these requirements. Furthermore, the claims asserted were not time-barred, as the statute of limitations had been interrupted by invoices and reminders in each instance. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.
  • Judgment of June 3, 2026 (A-4770/2024):Obligation to pay (customs; spirits tax), Art. 12 VStrR; an operator of a tax warehouse had failed to declare the receipt of spirits imported or purchased under tax suspension in its monthly tax returns. The Federal Tax Administration (BAZG) demanded additional spirits taxes of approximately CHF 615,000 pursuant to Art. 12 VStrR. The taxpayer argued that a large portion of the spirits in question had subsequently been properly removed from the tax warehouse, assessed, and taxed. The Federal Administrative Court held that, according to recent Federal Supreme Court case law, the obligation to make subsequent payment and the ordinary tax claim stand in a relationship of alternative concurrent claims. To the extent that the spirits tax had already been paid, the obligation to make additional payments could lapse. Since the lower court had not clarified the relevant facts, the Federal Administrative Court set aside the decision and remanded the case to the Federal Tax Administration for further factual clarification and a new assessment. The taxpayer’s appeal was upheld.

Administrative Assistance:

  • A-4438/2025:Double Taxation Agreement between Switzerland and Finland

Updates:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

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