Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 13.02.2026, 2C_238/2025
Facts
The Indian tax authorities submitted a request for administrative assistance to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) concerning C.C., an Indian tax resident. The request sought information regarding a Swiss bank account held by E. Limited, a company for which C.C. is allegedly the beneficial owner.
The FTA decided to grant the assistance. C.C. appealed to the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), disputing his status as the beneficial owner and alleging that the bank documents had been falsified. The FAC partially upheld the appeal, ordering additional redactions and the inclusion of a note stating that there was doubt regarding the identity of the beneficial owner, but otherwise confirmed the transmission of the information. C.C. then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court (FSC).
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the admissibility requirements for an appeal in matters of international administrative assistance in tax matters, governed by Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). An appeal is only admissible if the case raises a legal issue of fundamental importance or if it is a particularly important case (Art. 84 para. 2 FSCA).
A legal issue of fundamental importance exists when it is necessary to clarify a new and uncertain legal question that is significant for legal practice. A case is considered particularly important, in particular, when there are reasons to believe that the proceedings abroad violate fundamental principles.
The FSC also reiterates that it rules based on the facts established by the lower court (Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA) and that the submission of new facts or evidence is generally inadmissible (Art. 99 para. 1 FSCA). Media reports do not constitute notorious facts that can be taken into account.
Application to the present case
The appellant argued that his case raised two legal issues of fundamental importance: must assistance be refused if the relevance of the documents is based on criminal offenses committed in Switzerland, or if the bank documents have been falsified? He claimed that a former bank manager had altered the documents to falsely designate him as the beneficial owner.
The Federal Supreme Court ruled that these issues did not constitute questions of principle. The appellant's argument relied entirely on facts (the alleged falsification) that had not been established by the Federal Administrative Court. The Federal Supreme Court, bound by the facts as determined by the lower court, could not take them into consideration. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the appellant (press articles, etc.) constituted inadmissible new evidence. The question of the relevance of information is a concept already well established by case law, and its application to this specific case does not raise a question of principle.
The appellant also claimed that this was a particularly important case because the Indian proceedings were allegedly flawed, as the requesting authority had obtained its information from a witness who was not credible. The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument as well, as it was once again based on facts not established in the contested judgment. The appellant therefore failed to demonstrate the existence of serious flaws in the foreign proceedings.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, as the conditions of Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF) were not met. The legal costs were charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
