TF, 08.25.2026, 2C_462/2026
Facts
On February 18, 2025, the Italian authorities submitted a request for administrative assistance in tax matters to the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) concerning the company E.________, based on the double taxation agreement between Switzerland and Italy (DTA CH-IT) (fact A).
As part of this procedure, the company A.________ AG, acting as tax representative, requested that the FTA grant it party status, redact the names of its employees, and suspend the proceedings (fact A).
In a decision dated June 12, 2026, the FTA refused to grant party status to A.________ AG. On July 13, 2026, A.________ AG and three of its employees appealed this decision to the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), requesting the granting of party status and, as a provisional measure, that the FTA be instructed to carry out the requested redactions before transmitting the information (fact B.a).
In an incidental decision dated July 29, 2026, the FAC rejected the request for provisional measures. It ruled that the information for which redaction was requested (names of the tax representatives) was likely relevant to the Italian investigation, rendering the request for provisional measures doomed to failure from the outset (fact B.b).
A.________ AG and its three employees (hereinafter: the appellants) filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court against this incidental decision, seeking its annulment (fact C).
Law
Regarding international administrative assistance in tax matters, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is only admissible if it raises a legal question of principle or if it concerns a particularly important case (art. 84a LTF) (consid. 1.2). It is the responsibility of the appellant to demonstrate how one of these conditions is met (art. 42 para. 2 LTF) (consid. 1.2).
A legal question of principle exists if the decision can serve as a guide for practice, particularly for a large number of similar cases, or if it involves a new question requiring clarification by the highest judicial authority (consid. 1.2.1).
A case is particularly important, in particular, when there is reason to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad exhibit serious defects (art. 84 para. 2 LTF). This condition is interpreted restrictively (consid. 1.2.2).
An appeal against an incidental decision (such as the refusal of provisional measures) is only admissible if an appeal against the final decision on the merits would also be admissible (principle of the unity of proceedings) (consid. 1.1).
Application to the specific case
The appellants must demonstrate that their appeal against the incidental decision of the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) raises a question of principle or constitutes a particularly important case (recital 1.3).
They argue that a question of principle arises, namely whether the FAC can refuse interim measures at the risk of rendering the right of appeal on the merits illusory (regarding party status and the right to redaction) (recital 1.3.1).
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this argument. The question of principle raised by the appellants does not address the central reasoning of the FAC, which rejected the request for interim measures due to a lack of prospects of success on the merits (the likely relevance of the information). The appellants do not formulate a question of principle on this specific point regarding the likely relevance of the names of the tax representatives, which was the core of the FAC's reasoning. There is therefore no question of principle to be decided (recital 1.3.3).
The appellants also invoke the existence of a particularly important case due to a violation of their right to reply, as they were unable to comment on the Federal Tax Administration's position before the FAC ruled on the interim measures (recital 1.4).
The Federal Supreme Court also dismisses this argument. In the context of interim measure proceedings, which must be expedited, the inability to reply does not constitute a qualified violation of the rights of the defense that would justify admitting a particularly important case (recital 1.4).
As the admissibility requirements of Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF) are not met, the appeal is inadmissible (recital 3).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not hear the appeal (operative part 1).
The court costs, set at 5,000 CHF, are to be borne jointly and severally by the appellants (operative part 2).
The appellants' request for extensive anonymization of the judgment is rejected, as the standard anonymization used for internet publication is deemed sufficient (operative part 3, recital 2).