Federal Supreme Court, 18.12.2025, 2C_700/2025
Facts
Following a request for administrative assistance from the Indian tax authorities regarding an undeclared bank account in Switzerland, the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) granted assistance against A.________. The latter's appeal against this decision was largely dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), and a subsequent initial appeal to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was declared inadmissible.
After the FSC issued its decision of inadmissibility, the FTA transmitted the requested information to the Indian authorities on November 27, 2023. Subsequently, A.________ filed a request for revision with the FAC, seeking to have the assistance decision annulled and its illegality established. The FAC did not consider the request, on the grounds that the applicant no longer had a current and practical interest in the revision, as the data had already been transmitted. A.________ is appealing this decision of inadmissibility by the FAC to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for the admissibility of an appeal in matters of international administrative assistance in tax matters. According toArt. 83 lit. h andArt. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), such an appeal is only admissible if it raises a legal question of principle or if it is a particularly important case.
A legal question of principle exists if the decision can guide practice, if it is a new question requiring clarification by the FSC, or if a reassessment of existing case law is necessary. A particularly important case may exist, in particular, in the event of a violation of fundamental procedural principles or serious defects in the proceedings abroad.
Furthermore, for any legal remedy, including revision, the appellant must justify a legitimate interest, which must be current and practical at the time of filing the appeal and the rendering of the judgment (Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the conditions of Art. 84a FSCA are met.
First, the appellant argues that the question of whether a person retains a legitimate interest in having the illegality of an assistance decision established after the transmission of data, in order to protect against a violation of public policy and the principle of specialty, is a legal question of principle. The FSC rejects this argument. It notes that there is consistent and well-established case law on the concept of legitimate interest, which also applies to the revision procedure. The appellant is merely challenging the application of these principles to his particular case, which does not constitute a question of principle.
Second, the appellant claims that this is a particularly important case due to a threatened violation of public policy and the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law by India. The FSC also dismisses this argument. It notes that these issues have already been addressed in its case law concerning the double taxation convention with India. Moreover, the appellant had already raised these same grievances in his first appeal to the FSC. However, grounds that could have been invoked in the context of an ordinary appeal cannot form the basis for a request for revision. Consequently, the situation does not constitute a particularly important case.
Issue
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the admissibility requirements under Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF) were not met. As there is no legal question of principle or case of particular importance, the appeal is inadmissible.
The Federal Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the court costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
