Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 03.26.2026, 9C_205/2026
Facts
A couple of taxpayers, formerly domiciled in the canton of Schaffhausen and now residing in the canton of Vaud, are in a dispute with the Schaffhausen tax authorities regarding their tax liability for the 2010 to 2013 periods. As part of these proceedings, the Obergericht (cantonal high court) of the canton of Schaffhausen ordered the taxpayers to pay an advance on costs of CHF 6,000 by a decision dated September 26, 2025.
This decision, sent by registered mail, was not collected by the taxpayers. Under the legal fiction of notification, it was deemed validly served on October 7, 2025. As the taxpayers failed to pay the advance on costs within the prescribed time limit, they filed a request for reinstatement of the time limit ("Wiedereinsetzung in den früheren Stand") with the Obergericht on January 23, 2026.
In a decision dated February 6, 2026, the Obergericht rejected this request, deeming it both late and unfounded. The taxpayers then filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court against this dismissal, requesting its annulment, the reinstatement of the time limit for paying the advance on costs, and an order for the lower court to examine the case on its merits.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the principles governing the reinstatement of a time limit and the admissibility of an appeal.
- Reinstatement of a time limit: A party who has missed a time limit through no fault of their own may request its reinstatement. This request must itself be filed within a peremptory time limit (in this case, 10 or 30 days, depending on cantonal law) from the moment the impediment ceased.
- Fiction of notification: A judicial document sent by registered mail that is not collected within the postal holding period is deemed served on the last day of that period. This legal fiction is intended to ensure legal certainty and prevent litigants from evading proceedings by refusing to acknowledge court communications.
- Requirements for the reasoning of an appeal (art. 42 para. 2 and 108 para. 1 let. b LTF): The appellant must explain in their brief, concisely and relevantly, how the contested decision violates the law. When an appeal is manifestly inadmissible or unfounded, it may be handled through a simplified procedure by a single judge, without an exchange of written submissions.
- Absence of denial of justice in cases of inadmissibility: The fact that a court does not address an appeal or request that does not meet the conditions of admissibility (for example, a late request for reinstatement) does not constitute a violation of the right to be heard (art. 29 para. 2 Cst.), the right of access to a court (art. 29a Cst.), or an act of arbitrariness (art. 9 Cst.).
- Subject of the dispute (Art. 99 para. 2 LTF) : The Federal Supreme Court only rules on the subject matter of the challenged decision. Arguments concerning previous decisions that have become final are inadmissible.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court analyzes the admissibility of the taxpayers' appeal and concludes that it is manifestly inadmissible.
First, the Federal Supreme Court confirms the Obergericht's analysis regarding the untimeliness of the request for reinstatement. Since the decision requiring the advance on costs was deemed notified on October 7, 2025, the deadline for requesting reinstatement began to run from that date. The request, formally filed on January 23, 2026 (or even considering an initial attempt in an appeal dated December 17, 2025), was made well after the 10- or 30-day deadlines provided for by cantonal law. Even using the date the taxpayers claim to have collected the letter (October 21, 2025), the request would still be late. The Obergericht therefore correctly rejected the request for reinstatement on procedural grounds.
Second, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the taxpayers' appeal is insufficiently substantiated. Instead of demonstrating how the Obergericht's decision of February 6, 2026 (regarding the rejection of the request for reinstatement) is contrary to the law, the appellants develop arguments on the merits of the tax dispute and revisit the issue of the notification of the decision of September 26, 2025. However, this question of notification is outside the scope of the current dispute, which concerns only the untimeliness of their request for reinstatement. The appeal brief therefore contains no relevant or targeted argumentation against the challenged decision.
Third, the Federal Supreme Court rejects the appellants' argument that the failure to examine the case on its merits constitutes a violation of their right to be heard. As the Obergericht correctly determined the inadmissibility of the request for reinstatement due to untimeliness, it was not required to examine the merits of the case. The taxpayers' failure to comply with procedural rules is the sole cause of this outcome.
In the absence of relevant substantiation, the appeal is declared manifestly inadmissible and handled via simplified proceedings. Other requests, such as holding a hearing or granting suspensive effect, become moot.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court does not entertain the appeal. The request for free legal aid is rejected, as the appeal is devoid of any chance of success from the outset. The court costs, set at CHF 1,000, are to be borne by the appellants, jointly and severally.
Silex tax newsletter published in collaboration with Anna Vladau, Attorney at Law
