Decisions of the Swiss Federal Administrative CourtCW 42- 2025)

Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between October 13 - 19, 2025:

‍Judgmentof October 7, 2025 (A-2541/2025): Remission of import duties; It had to be clarified whether remission based on the hardship clause of Art. 86 para. 1 let. d ZG is possible in the present case. 1 In the light of the clear legal provisions on "liability for auxiliary persons", the appellant cannot derive anything in its favor from the fact that the appointed person may have acted contrary to instructions and failed to make the import customs declarations. The appellant must therefore accept responsibility for the conduct of the auxiliary person. Dismissal of the appeal of the taxable person.
‍Judgmentof October 7, 2025 (A-2545/2025): Waiver of automobile tax; in this case, the waiver is based on Art. 21 para. 1 let. b AStG. The principles developed for Art. 86 para. 1 let. d ZG can be applied analogously for the requirements of this hardship clause. In light of the clear legal requirements, the correct and convincing explanations of the lower court must be confirmed. In the present case, remission of the automobile taxes is out of the question due to the lack of exceptional circumstances; dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Judgment of September 26, 2025 (A-3642/2025): VAT 2015; unjustified tax statement, legal force of the tax claim and fulfillment of the tax claim by payment of a third party. A sold a car for "CHF 140,000 incl. 8% VAT" to company Z. However, A was not entered in the VAT register. In 2019, the FTA inspected company B, in which A was a shareholder. The FTA originally attributed the sale to this company in the control result. B paid the tax amount reported in the control result. However, an assessment notice was not subsequently issued. The FTA opened administrative criminal proceedings against A. As part of the criminal investigation, the FTA established that it was not B but A who had sold the car. The FTA therefore paid back the tax paid to B. However, it claimed the tax from A with a performance order (Art. 12 VStrR). The latter argued that the tax claim had become legally binding due to the unconditional payment of the control result by B and had also ceased to exist. However, the FAC came to the conclusion that the tax claim only becomes legally binding upon the unconditional payment of an assessment notice. Furthermore, B paid the tax claim for itself and not for A. This payment could not have a discharging effect for A. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.

Administrative assistance (incl. updates):