Federal Supreme Court, 26.05.2026, 9C_135/2026
Facts
A taxpayer residing in France worked in Geneva from 2011 to 2020 as a member of the administrative staff of a European Union delegation. Starting in 2011, he was informed by the Swiss authorities of his obligation to declare his income to the Geneva Cantonal Tax Administration (Afc-Ge), as his employer was exempt from withholding tax due to its status. (consid. 1)
Since the 2011 tax period, the taxpayer has systematically refused to file tax returns. Consequently, the Afc-Ge proceeded with ex officio assessments for federal direct tax and cantonal and communal taxes for the 2011 to 2020 periods. (consid. 2)
The taxpayer's obligation to file tax returns in Switzerland for the years 2014 to 2020 was definitively confirmed by a Federal Supreme Court judgment on May 22, 2025. Following this confirmation, the Afc-Ge issued fourteen payment summonses on February 22, 2025. The taxpayer challenged these summonses, but his appeal was declared inadmissible at first instance (TAPI), a decision confirmed by the Court of Justice of the Republic and Canton of Geneva. The taxpayer then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court against this inadmissibility ruling. (consid. 3)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that it examines its own jurisdiction and the admissibility of appeals submitted to it ex officio. In accordance withArt. 42 para. 1 and 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), every appeal brief must contain grounds succinctly explaining how the contested act violates the law. To meet this requirement, the appellant must engage with the reasoning of the previous decision and demonstrate precisely how the lower authority misapplied the law. The reasoning must be "topical," meaning it must specifically address the legal issue decided by the previous instance. (consid. 4, 4.1)
The Federal Supreme Court highlights a fundamental procedural rule: when the contested decision is a ruling of inadmissibility, the grounds for the appeal may only address this issue of admissibility, to the exclusion of any arguments on the merits of the case. To determine the nature of the contested decision, its operative part must be interpreted in light of its reasoning. An appeal whose reasoning does not meet these requirements is declared inadmissible under the simplified procedure ofArt. 108 para. 1 let. b FSCA. (consid. 4.1)
Application to the specific case
In this case, the Court of Justice ruling challenged by the appellant confirmed the TAPI judgment that declared the appeal against the payment summonses inadmissible. The Court of Justice's decision is therefore itself a ruling of inadmissibility. Consequently, the appeal before the Federal Supreme Court could validly only address the question of whether the Court of Justice violated the law by confirming the inadmissibility of the initial appeal. (consid. 4.2)
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant did not meet this requirement. Instead of challenging the grounds for inadmissibility upheld by the Court of Justice, he merely reiterated his arguments on the merits of the dispute, invoking the violation of various legal and constitutional provisions that have no connection to the procedural question of admissibility. The appellant's argumentation is therefore not topical and does not address the grounds of the contested ruling. (consid. 4.2)
As the reasoning of the appeal clearly does not meet the requirements of Article 42 paragraphs 1 and 2 FSCA, the Federal Supreme Court cannot address the merits. (consid. 4.2)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible in accordance with the simplified procedure provided for in Article 108 paragraph 1 letter b FSCA. (consid. 1 of the operative part, consid. 5)
As the unsuccessful party, the appellant is ordered to pay the court costs, which are set at 500 francs. (recital 2 of the operative part, recital 5)
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
