Overview of tax rulings by the Swiss Federal Administrative Court published between February 16 and 22, 2026:

  • Judgment of May 6, 2025 (A-4476/2023): Customs exemption for non-profit organizations; The dispute concerns the interpretation of Art. 17(2) ZV, which stipulates that the donation must be appropriate to the purpose of alleviating need or damage. The lower court took the view that the donation of valves for rocket research did not fall under this definition. The appellant, on the other hand, takes the view that if the recipient of the donation of goods is a non-profit organization, it cannot be additionally relevant whether the recipient of the donation is a person in need. In this context, she also mentions climate change and its consequences, which could be alleviated, among other things, by research and development in the field of space travel. The Federal Administrative Court concluded that although the appellant is a recognized non-profit organization within the meaning of Art. 56 lit. g DBG, this does not alter the fact that the donation is not appropriate for the purpose of alleviating need or damage. As shown, the requirement of Art. 17 para. 2 ZV is not met in the present case. Dismissal of the appeal by the charitable organization.
  • Judgment of February 9, 2026 (A-7296/2024): Household tax ; order of October 15, 2024; the dispute concerns whether the deadline for filing an appeal was missed. In the present case, the order of April 19, 2024, of the court of first instance was delivered at the post office counter on April 24, 2024. The deadline therefore began on April 25, 2024, and ended on May 24, 2024. This is not affected by the appellant's assertion that he commissioned a third party (assistant) to collect the order from the post office and did not receive it himself until April 30, 2024. The appellant must accept responsibility for the receipt of the order by this assistant. The appeal, dated May 28, 2024, and sent by first class mail, was received by the lower court on June 4, 2024—too late. Dismissal of A.'s appeal.
  • Judgment of May 3, 2019 (A-956/2019): Withholding tax; rejection of an application for review and reconsideration; The Federal Administrative Court concluded that the application for review for the tax periods 2006 to 2009 was unfounded with regard to the question of admissibility and that the application for reconsideration should have been rejected.

Administrative assistance / updates:

Republished (see our post from October 27, 2019):

  • Judgment of February 15, 2019 (A-2186/2018): Customs; operating license for an open customs warehouse (OZL); violation of the right to be heard; in the present case, the complainant is a company operating in the field of international transport and freight forwarding and held an unlimited license to operate an open customs warehouse (OZL). As the company did not meet the 200 entries and exits per year stipulated by the FCA in the relevant guideline on open customs warehouses, its permanent operating license was revoked and a one-year license was issued instead. The appellant claimed before the Federal Administrative Court that its right to a fair hearing had been violated. The FAC upheld the taxpayer's appeal on the grounds that the FCA had revoked the operating license and replaced it with a limited license without stating the reasons and legal basis on which it was based. The FCA had therefore failed to fulfill its obligation to state reasons and had consequently violated the appellant's right to a fair hearing.
  • Judgment of 4 June 2019 (A-3061/2018): VAT; cryopreservation of embryonic stem cells; supply vs. service; majority of services. In the present case, the question arises as to whether the services (cryopreservation of embryonic stem cells) provided by the company lodging the complaint to the future parents constitute a supply pursuant to Art. 3 lit. d VAT Act or a service pursuant to Art. 3 lit. e VAT Act. In addition, it is questionable whether this concerns a majority of services pursuant to Art. 19 VAT Act or medical services within the meaning of Art. 21 para. 2 subparas. 2-5 VAT Act which are exempt from tax. The BVGer confirmed the decision of the FTA and stated that the services in question were a supply that was not exempt from tax. The services in the form of cryopreservation of embryonic stem cells are to be regarded as a majority of services under Article 19(3) of the VAT Act, since the processing process - from the removal of embryonic stem cells from the umbilical cord to cryopreservation - is to be regarded as an indivisible whole. Furthermore, this is not a deposit within the meaning of Art. 472 et seq. OR, as the complainant submitted as an argument for the existence of a service: The processing process constitutes the core content of the cryopreservation, which, from a VAT point of view, constitutes a supply under Article 3(d) of the VAT Act. Since the services provided by the complainant will not be used for medical treatment in the short term and will not even serve to diagnose or diagnose a disease, there was no medical service exempt from tax. Rejection of the taxpayer's complaint.

Decisions are listed chronologically by publication date.

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