TF, 13.10.2026,2C_627/2026
Facts
By letter dated May 24, 2023, based on Article 26 of the U.S.-Swiss Double Taxation Convention (DTC CH-US), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the competent authority of the United States, filed a request for administrative tax assistance with the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) (Fact A).
This request concerned U.S. persons (citizens, residents, or green card holders) who held a direct or indirect interest, between September 23, 2009, and December 31, 2019, in one or more bank accounts known as "U.S. Penalty Accounts" at Banque B.________ AG (the information holder), for which a link to the United States had been identified by the bank without proof of tax compliance (Fact A).
Information regarding these accounts had previously been provided to the U.S. Department of Justice in a redacted form in 2020 as part of a "Plea Agreement" ("Report II.D.2"), to which the requesting authority was now seeking full, unredacted access (Fact A).
By closing decision dated April 4, 2025, the FTA granted the requested administrative assistance regarding the account in question and ordered the transmission of the required information, including a clause reiterating the usage restrictions and secrecy obligations derived from theArticle 26, paragraph 2 of the US-CH DTA(Fact B).
Seized by A.________ Ltd., the holder of the bank account in dispute identified in Report II.D.2, the Federal Administrative Court partially upheld the appeal in a judgment dated September 8, 2026: it ordered the FTA to notify the requesting authority with an explicit warning that the information transmitted may only be used for proceedings directed against the person concerned and exclusively for the facts set out in the request, while dismissing the remainder of the appeal (Facts B.a and B.b).
A.________ Ltd. (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court on October 1, 2026.
It requested the annulment of the Federal Administrative Court's judgment and the refusal of administrative assistance, or alternatively, the referral of the case for further clarification from the bank, and more subsidiarily, the formal addition of a note of contestation regarding the beneficial owner (C.________) as well as redaction measures (Fact C).
Law
Pursuant toArt. 83 let. h of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in public law matters is inadmissible against decisions relating to international administrative assistance, with the exception of the field of administrative tax assistance, where an appeal is only admissible in exceptional cases if the dispute raises a legal question of principle or if it is a particularly important case within the meaning of theArt. 84 para. 2 FSCA(consid. 1.1).
A legal question of principle is characterized by a case that requires the resolution of a novel or fundamental substantive legal issue whose scope will serve as a reference guideline for numerous similar cases pending before lower courts, or when a review of case law proves essential, provided, however, that said question is decisive for the concrete outcome of the dispute (consid. 1.1.1).
Furthermore, a particularly important case within the meaning of Art. 84 para. 2 LTF can only be recognized with strict restraint, particularly in the presence of serious indications suggesting a grave violation of fundamental procedural principles or major defects in the conduct of proceedings abroad (consid. 1.1.2).
In the execution of an international tax assistance request, the FTA is not required to rule on the merits of the civil or tax attribution of the beneficial ownership of the bank assets under investigation (consid. 1.2.1).
The Swiss executing authority is authorized to transmit data that may even be factually inaccurate, provided that it is immediately apparent to the foreign requesting authority that these elements are disputed and require further investigation on its part (consid. 1.2.1).
Since the disputed situation is clearly recognizable from the circumstances of the file, the express addition of a note of contestation on the transmitted documents is superfluous (consid. 1.2.1).
Moreover, a group request based on a list of accounts (Listenersuchen) is, in principle, equivalent to a juxtaposition of individual requests combined in a single petition for reasons of procedural economy, such that the jurisprudential principles governing individual requests are fully and directly applicable to it (consid. 1.2.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant argues that the dispute raises a legal question of principle on the grounds that the Federal Supreme Court has never determined whether the case law exempting the FTA from adding a note of contestation extends to group requests based on lists (consid. 1.2 and 1.2.2).
The Federal Supreme Court refutes this argument by recalling that a group request in the form of a list is legally equivalent to a bundle of individual requests grouped for strict administrative management reasons (consid. 1.2.2).
Consequently, the long-standing jurisprudential principles established for individual requests, which state that the FTA has no obligation to verify the status of the beneficial owner on the merits and which govern the criteria for adding a notice of contestation when the dispute is manifest, apply identically to requests made by list (consid. 1.2.2).
As the requirements for registering a notice of objection have already been fully addressed by judicial practice, the appellant's grievance is merely a challenge to the application of the law in a specific case and holds no fundamental legal significance (recital 1.2.2).
Regarding the argument based on an alleged case of particular importance due to a violation of the right to be heard and the obligation to provide reasons (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution), the appellant fails to demonstrate the existence of a qualified and manifest violation of essential procedural guarantees within the meaning of Art. 84 para. 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (recital 1.3).
Since none of the strict and exceptional conditions prescribed by Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act are met, the Federal Supreme Court cannot consider the appeal (recital 1.4).
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not consider the public law appeal (operative part 1, recital 1.4).
The court costs, set at 5,000 CHF, are to be borne by the unsuccessful appellant (operative part 2, recital 2).