Decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (CW 34–2026)

Overview of the tax law decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between August 17 and 23, 2026:

Judgment of July 2, 2026 (A-683/2025): Value-Added Tax 2014–2019; net tax rate; a wine and beverage retailer purchased grapes and had them pressed and bottled by a third party. The Federal Administrative Court did not classify this as “wine: trade” but rather as “viticulture”: The decisive factor was that the taxpayer was responsible for the production of the wine; the fact that she had outsourced the pressing and bottling to a third party and did not grow any grapes herself was irrelevant. Consequently, the higher net tax rate for “viticulture” applied. The additional tax claims for the 2014 and 2015 tax periods, however, were absolutely time-barred. The taxpayer’s appeal was partially upheld.
‍Judgment of August 6, 2026 (A-8330/2025): Withholding tax for 2022; payment relief; in this case, the FTA initiated collection proceedings against the taxpayer after the payment deadline had been extended several times. In a decision, the FTA dismissed the taxpayer’s objection and ordered her to pay the tax liability. The FTA also rejected the taxpayer’s appeal against this decision. Before the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), the taxpayer filed a complaint alleging that the FTA had violated her right to a fair hearing. According to the Federal Administrative Court, however, this was not the case. First, the taxpayer had already had the opportunity to comment extensively on the matter, and second, the decision on the objection had been sufficiently reasoned. The Federal Administrative Court did not address the issue of granting payment relief due to lack of jurisdiction. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal, to the extent it was considered.
Judgment of July 28, 2026 (A-6887/2025): Withholding tax; assessment, de facto liquidation, liquidator liability; the issue in dispute is whether a payment made through the transfer of securities and the set-off of claims constitutes a payment in kind that was made in the context of a de facto liquidation. Furthermore, the issue at hand is whether the appellant is jointly and severally liable for the withholding tax claim associated with this payment. The Federal Administrative Court first concludes that a payment of monetary value must be assumed. In addition, the company was de facto liquidated; in the Court’s view, the de facto liquidation began at the latest with the disposition of assets. Finally, the Federal Administrative Court affirms the liquidators’ liability. The appellant cannot exculpate himself and is personally liable for the withholding tax. The appeal is found to be unfounded in all respects and is dismissed.
Judgment of July 14, 2026 (A-1048/2026): VOC tax; correction of the 2024 financial statements; additional assessment; the 95% availability of the exhaust air purification system required for the tax exemption was not achieved. A new calculation method submitted retroactively was not to be taken into account for the 2024 fiscal year. Consequently, the tax exemption was completely revoked. The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed.
Judgment of August 5, 2026 (A-6593/2024): Customs; Retroactive Assessment of Customs Duties and Import Taxes; a company used its general import license and quota allocations to import breeding animals for third-party customers. Since the buyers—and not the company—were considered the actual importers and consignees, the requirements for the preferential quota tariff rate were not met; the animals should have been cleared at the out-of-quota tariff rate. The appeal filed by the taxpayer and by the member of the board of directors and managing director responsible for imports and exports was dismissed.
Judgment of August 10, 2026 (A-1618/2026): VAT 2018–2020; input tax deduction; the FTA corrected the taxpayer’s input tax deduction because the closely related service provider had declared the VAT shown on the invoice but had not paid it. The Federal Administrative Court confirmed that a formally correct invoice showing VAT generally entitles the taxpayer to an input tax deduction, even if the tax was not remitted (collection risk for the FTA, even in the case of closely related parties); an exception applies only if there is positive knowledge that the service provider is not registered for VAT, which in this case applies only to an invoice issued before the service provider registered (retroactively) for VAT. Whether a retroactive right to deduct input tax exists following the retroactive registration can be left open in this case, since the taxpayer—with the exception of one (other) invoice—cannot demonstrate any payment to the service provider that would prove the taxpayer’s payment of the value-added tax. The mere posting of the amount to a loan account in relation to the joint beneficial owner is not sufficient. The taxpayer’s appeal is largely dismissed.
Judgment of August 11, 2026 (A-5655/2024): CO2 tax; penalties; order of August 15, 2024; the issue in dispute is whether the appellant was correctly classified as an importer of a vehicle and assessed a CO2 penalty. For the period during which the provisions of Art. 17(2)(a)–(c) of the CO2 Ordinance were in force (from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023), the following supplementary rule is to be established to effectively fill a gap in the law: Unless the importer can be identified pursuant to Art. 17(2)(a) a–c of the CO2 Ordinance, the importer of the vehicle shall be deemed to be the person designated as such in the customs declaration, unless that person proves otherwise. Dismissal of the taxpayer’s appeal.

Administrative Assistance: