Overview of the tax rulings of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between November 17 - 23, 2025:
- Judgment of November 11, 2025 (A-6995/2023): VOC levy; reimbursement; dismissal of the appeal.
- Judgment of October 29, 2025 (A-7188/2023): VAT 2013-2018; limitation period, VAT and input tax correction; the transfer of legal ownership is not mandatory for the assumption of a taxable supply; the provision of the economic power of disposal is sufficient. The FTA therefore rightly levied VAT on the (economic) transfer of assets to the sister company; as there are no indications of a transfer of personnel, the only possible option for applying the mandatory reporting procedure would be a direct tax transfer of business assets; However, the application of the mandatory reporting procedure fails at the latest because the acquirer was not liable to pay tax and also did not become (compulsorily) liable to pay tax as a result of the transfer, as it apparently did not expect to reach the turnover threshold and therefore only registered retroactively to the transfer date at a later date. The FTA then also proceeded correctly with regard to the offset "Maison sales" of the taxpayer's restaurant business. The appeal should only be upheld with regard to the 2013 and 2014 tax periods due to the absolute statute of limitations, but otherwise dismissed.
- Judgment of November 5, 2025 (A-6050/2024): VAT 2018 - 2022; partial res judicata, input VAT deduction, non-business (private) area, private shares, mixed use, burden of proof, discretionary assessment. In this case, a taxable person who operated a sole proprietorship without employees declared input tax surpluses. The FTA finally made various input tax corrections to the self-declaration by means of an objection decision, all of which the FAC considers to be justified. In detail: The taxable person bears the burden of proof for the actual conditions for the input tax deduction. He did not prove that the expenses for a bank deposit, legal representation in an inheritance dispute and a second vehicle were business-related. In connection with cash expenses, the FTA was allowed to make a discretionary assessment and allocate the result to other periods due to a lack of supporting documents. In connection with the two vehicles (one used primarily for business purposes, the other not business-related on the basis of the evidence), it also rightly allocated the vehicle expenses on an estimated basis. It was also correct to include a private share for the vehicle used for business purposes (a van). Finally, it was not objectionable that, in the absence of any other evidence and merely based on the taxpayer's blanket objections, it assumed that the private portions recorded concerned expenses subject to the standard rate. Dismissal of the taxpayer's appeal.
Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.
