Federal Supreme Court, 08.24.2026, 2C_463/2026
Facts
On May 3, 2021, the Israeli tax authority submitted a request for administrative assistance to the FTA based on the MAC concerning A.________ and thirteen other individuals linked to a banking relationship with P.________ AG. Certain parts of the request were redacted for confidentiality reasons. By letter dated April 29, 2025, the FTA nevertheless communicated the essential content of the redacted passages to the interested parties (consid. 1.2-1.3.2).
In a final decision dated June 26, 2025, the FTA granted assistance and ordered the transmission of the information. The interested parties appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, alleging, in particular, a violation of their right to inspect the file and their right to be heard. The Federal Administrative Court rejected their appeal, finding that the information provided allowed for an effective defense. They subsequently appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (consid. 1-1.3.2).
Law
In matters of administrative tax assistance, an appeal to the Federal Supreme Court is only admissible, pursuant toArt. 84a LTF, if the case raises a legal issue of principle or constitutes a particularly important case. An issue of principle exists, in particular, when clarification from the Federal Supreme Court is necessary to guide practice or resolve a new issue of general importance. A simple challenge to the application of the law to the specific case is not sufficient (consid. 1.1).
According toArt. 28 APA, when a party does not have access to a document, the authority may only use it to their detriment if it communicates its essential content and allows them to comment on it and offer counter-evidence. The decisive criterion is whether the person concerned can nevertheless effectively assert their point of view. The extent of the information to be communicated therefore depends on the specific circumstances (consid. 1.3-1.3.1).
A restriction on the inspection of the file may also be justified by significant public interests, in particular the protection of international relations. Confidentiality indications provided by the requesting State are assessed in light of the principle of good faith in international law (consid. 1.3.3).
Application to the specific case
The appellants asked the Federal Supreme Court to determine the minimum information that must be disclosed when an assistance request is heavily redacted. However, the Court held that this issue is already covered by case law regarding Art. 28 of the Administrative Procedure Act: it must be assessed on a case-by-case basis whether the information provided allows for an effective defense (recitals 1.2-1.3.1).
In this case, the Federal Administrative Court compared the letter of April 29, 2025, with the Israeli request and found that the Federal Tax Administration had correctly disclosed its essential content. Furthermore, the appellants were able to state their position and offer evidence. They failed to demonstrate how the missing elements prevented them from effectively challenging the assistance (recital 1.3.2).
Balancing their interest in accessing the entire file against the public interest in maintaining confidentiality and relations with Israel is also a matter of applying the law to the specific circumstances of the case. It therefore does not raise a legal question of principle (recitals 1.3.3-1.3.4).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, as it did not raise a legal question of principle within the meaning of Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act. Consequently, it did not examine the merits of whether the administrative assistance was justified. The court costs of CHF 5,000 are to be borne jointly and severally by the appellants (recitals 1.3.4 and 2).