Who pays inheritance tax in the canton of Bern?

In the canton of Bern, inheritance tax is calculated on the net share received by each heir or legatee.

The amount payable depends mainly on the relationship between the beneficiary and the deceased. Close family members are exempt, while other beneficiaries may be taxed.

Who is exempt and who must pay?

Bernese rules distinguish beneficiaries according to their family relationship with the deceased:

• Exempt close relatives: The surviving spouse, the registered partner, and direct descendants, such as children and grandchildren, pay no inheritance tax. Subject to certain conditions, this exemption also covers stepchildren and foster children.
• Other beneficiaries who are taxed: Other heirs and legatees pay tax on the net share they receive. This concerns, in particular, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, parents, grandparents, cohabiting partners, and individuals with no family relationship. In principle, the tax rate increases as the family relationship becomes more distant.

Which canton may tax the estate?

The competent canton depends on the deceased's last domicile and the location of any immovable property:

• Movable and immovable property: If the deceased had their last domicile in the canton of Bern, that canton may tax their movable property. If they lived in another canton or abroad, Bern may, in principle, only tax immovable property situated within its territory.
• Estate divided among several cantons: Where assets are situated in several cantons, the estate, debts, and charges are allocated among them according to standard rules. This calculation prevents the same assets from being taxed twice.

Bern applies its own rules, because there is no federal inheritance taxin Switzerland. The canton of Zurich follows a similar logic, set out in our article oninheritance tax in Zurich.

Legal sources

Federal legislation:

• Art. 127 para. 3 Cst.(cited inBGE 150 I 31;Federal Supreme Court judgment 9C_102/2023 ) (principle prohibiting intercantonal double taxation and delimitation of cantonal tax sovereignty)
• Art. 14 para. 1 THA(cited inBGE 150 I 31;Federal Supreme Court judgment 9C_102/2023 ) (principle of wealth valuation and approximation to the market value of assets)
• Art. 560 SCC,Art. 457 SCCandArt. 462 SCC(cited inBGE 123 I 241 (Note: This decision is more than two years old; its current legal relevance should be checked) (legal devolution of the estate, order of heirs, and rights of the surviving spouse)
• Art. 12 DFTAandArt. 53a THA (tax succession of heirs to the obligations of the deceased taxpayer and simplified supplementary tax assessment)

Bernese cantonal legislation:

• Art. 103 para. 2 Const. BE (cantonal constitutional basis for levying inheritance and gift taxes)
• Art. 17 LISD/BE (cited in BGE 150 I 31;Federal Supreme Court judgment 9C_102/2023 ) (personal deductions applicable to the net inheritance share in the canton of Bern)

Federal case law:

• BGE 150 I 31andFederal Supreme Court judgment 9C_102/2023 (application of Bernese inheritance tax to the shares of non-exempt heirs, determination of the taxable base according to the method of intercantonal allocation, and deduction of adjustments on Bernese real estate)
• BGE 123 I 241 (constitutional compatibility of cantonal regimes privileging or exempting spouses and direct descendants for family and social reasons) (Note: This decision is more than two years old; its current legal relevance should be verified)
• Federal Supreme Court judgment 2P.314/2001 (Note: This decision is more than two years old; its current legal relevance should be verified) and Federal Supreme Court judgment 2P.98/2004 (Note: This decision is more than two years old; its current legal relevance should be verified) (rules allocating tax sovereignty between the canton of domicile for movable property and the canton of location for real estate via allocation values)
• BGE 131 I 409 (delimitation between income tax and Bernese inheritance tax for pension capital and benefits transferred upon death) (Note: This decision is more than two years old; its current legal relevance should be verified)

‍