Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between November 3 - 9, 2025:

  • Judgment of October 23, 2025 (A-4789/2021): Customs duties; temporary admission procedure with oral declaration; The present case concerns the subsequent collection of customs duties. In this case, the court found that it was undisputed that the owner of the Rolls-Royce Ghost with Italian license plates, which is registered to her Italian company based abroad, lived in Switzerland in the summer of 2019. On this occasion, she imported the said vehicle into Switzerland for personal use within the scope of temporary use with an oral declaration. Furthermore, the court found that there had been a change in the intended use of the vehicle from "personal use" to "uncertain sale" and that no new customs declaration had been submitted. The import of the vehicle in question is therefore subject to import tax. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
  • Judgment of October 21, 2025 (A-5286/2024): VAT 2016-2020; discretionary assessment; legal hearing; A missing handwritten signature of the assessment authority does not lead to the invalidity of the decision, as the defect is to be regarded as frivolous. Likewise, there is no right to inspect all documents except those that make it possible to understand the basis of the decision. In the present case, it was not possible to conclusively clarify how the turnover was estimated and which of the taxpayer's declarations were taken into account and which were not on the basis of the documents provided. Appeal upheld and referred back to the lower court.
  • Judgment of October 27, 2025 (A-5498/2024): Value added tax 2016 to 2018 (input tax correction of contribution tax / input tax deduction): At issue in this case was the taxable person's right to deduct input VAT and the right to deduct input VAT. The appellant was (voluntarily) included in the VAT register as of January 1, 2016, but had made a VAT-exempt supply in the previous year, invoiced it with an open VAT statement and was of the opinion that it was entitled to claim the input VAT incurred in the course of this supply. The FAC confirmed the lower court in its decision that only companies entered in the VAT register can opt for supplies exempt from VAT - in this case a supply of real estate - and therefore no option was made in this case (but merely an incorrect declaration of VAT, which is now due in accordance with Art. 27 Para. 2 MWSTG), the taxpayer had neither a right to deduct input tax nor could it claim a tax deduction and the contingent application (repayment of the VAT paid) did not have to be granted either, as the taxpayer was unable to prove that the federal government had not incurred a tax loss. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal
  • Judgment of October 27, 2025 (A-5727/2024): VAT 2016 - 2019; tax succession; net tax rates, majority of supplies, discretionary assessment, reference tax. In the present case, the taxpayer (or the sole proprietorship it took over) was granted two net tax rates (SSS) at its request: until 2017 SSS for "refrigeration and air conditioning systems: supplies with installation and service" (2.9%) and "Air conditioning and ventilation systems: cleaning" (5.2%); from 2018 SSS "Refrigeration and air conditioning systems: supply with installation (mixed sector; ancillary activities are repair and service work)" (2.8%) and "Air conditioning and ventilation systems: cleaning" (5.1%). The taxpayer had accounted for a large part of the turnover with the lower SSS. However, for the 2016 and 2017 tax periods, the FTA came to the conclusion that 67% of the sales invoiced at the lower SSS should have been invoiced at the higher SSS. Firstly, this concerned invoices where it was already clear from the invoice that a cleaning service had also been provided; secondly, however, it also concerned invoices where the service was only described as "service" or "maintenance", but where it was clear from other circumstances that a cleaning service was also included and the fee was not shown separately. For the 2018 and 2019 tax periods, the FTA made a discretionary assessment and reclassified 67% of the services invoiced at the lower SSS. The FTA also added reference tax. The FAC considers the FTA's approach to be lawful. Among other things, it stated that the taxpayer bears the objective burden of proof for the application of the lower SSS. Although the invoice is an important indicator, its significance must be relativized under the new VAT Act. As the taxable person could not prove what proportion of the total remuneration was attributable to the individual partial services in the case of flat-rate invoicing, the higher SSS was applicable on the basis of Art. 88 para. 2 VATO 2017. This provision had already previously been in line with the FTA's practice, which the FAC did not object to. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.

Administrative Assistance:

Updates:

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

Tax topics covered in this post:
Custom Duties
Value Added Tax (VAT)