TF, 18.12.2025, 2C_701/2025
Facts
The Indian tax authorities requested administrative assistance from the Federal Tax Administration (FTA) regarding A., who is suspected of concealing income in a Swiss bank account. The FTA granted the assistance. A.'s appeal against this decision was largely dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court (FAC), and her subsequent appeal to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was declared inadmissible.
After the FTA transmitted the requested information to India, A.________ filed an application for revision of the FAC judgment. She requested, among other things, a declaration that the administrative assistance was unlawful. The FAC did not consider the application, finding that since the data had already been transmitted, A.________ no longer had a current and practical interest in the revision of the decision. A.________ is appealing this inadmissibility decision to the Federal Supreme Court.
Law
According toArt. 83(h) of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), appeals in public law matters are inadmissible in the field of international administrative assistance, with the exception of administrative assistance in tax matters.
For the latter,Art. 84(1) FSCA specifies that an appeal is only admissible if the case raises a legal issue of principle or if it is a particularly important case (Art. 84(2) FSCA). The appellant must demonstrate how these conditions are met.
Furthermore, an application for revision, like an appeal, requires the applicant to have a legitimate, current, and practical interest in the annulment or modification of the contested decision (Art. 89(1) FSCA). This interest generally ceases to exist once the information has been transmitted to the requesting state.
Application to the case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the conditions of Art. 84a FSCA are met.
First, the appellant argues that the case raises a legal issue of principle, namely whether an affected person can have a legitimate interest in having the illegality of an assistance decision established after data transmission, in order to protect against a violation of public policy and the principle of specialty. The FSC rejects this argument. It considers that the question of a legitimate interest is a general procedural matter already settled by established case law, which also applies to applications for revision. The FAC's decision is consistent with this case law. It is therefore not a new issue of principle requiring clarification.
Second, the appellant claims that this is a particularly important case due to a threatened violation of fundamental guarantees (non-retroactivity, public policy). The FSC also dismisses this argument. It notes that these issues have already been addressed in case law and, above all, that the appellant had already raised these grievances in her first appeal to the FSC, which was deemed inadmissible. An application for revision cannot be used to assert arguments that could have been raised in the ordinary appeal proceedings.
As the admissibility requirements of Art. 84a of the Federal Supreme Court Act are not met, the appeal is inadmissible.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal and orders the appellant to pay the court costs.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
