Federal Supreme Court, 26.03.2026, 9C_208/2026
Facts
A couple of taxpayers challenged their tax assessment for the 2019 tax period regarding cantonal, municipal, and direct federal taxes. The dispute primarily concerned the refusal by the Fribourg Cantonal Tax Administration to allow the full deduction of medical expenses declared by the spouses.
The tax administration, in its decision on the objection, and subsequently the Fribourg Cantonal Court, on appeal, rejected the taxpayers' request. The Cantonal Court held that for a large portion of the claimed expenses (notably ambulance services and medication), the taxpayers had failed to prove that they had personally borne these costs and that they had not been covered, even partially, by their health insurance. Consequently, the cantonal authority only allowed a deduction of CHF 4,434 (corresponding to deductibles, co-payments, dental care, glasses, and hospital contributions), and only to the extent that this amount exceeded 5% of the taxpayers' net income.
The spouses then filed an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court against the Cantonal Court's judgment.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the formal requirements for the reasoning of an appeal, as defined inArt. 42 para. 1 and 2 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). An appeal must contain requests for relief and reasoning explaining, in a concise manner, how the contested act violates the law.
It is not sufficient for the appellant to criticize the contested decision in a general manner (purely appellate criticism) or to contrast their own version of the facts with that of the previous instance. The appellant must discuss the considerations of the challenged decision precisely and demonstrate, point by point, how the lower authority's reasoning is contrary to the law (within the meaning of Art. 95 LTF).
When the violation of fundamental rights is invoked, the requirements for reasoning are even stricter (Art. 106 para. 2 LTF). Similarly, to challenge the establishment of facts or the assessment of evidence, the appellant must demonstrate that these are manifestly inaccurate or based on a violation of the law within the meaning ofArt. 95 LTF, which is equivalent to demonstrating arbitrariness (Art. 97 para. 1 LTF).
Finally,Art. 108 para. 1 let. b LTF allows the Federal Supreme Court to rule via simplified proceedings and to decline to hear an appeal that is manifestly insufficiently reasoned.
Application to the present case
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appeal clearly fails to meet the requirements for reasoning.
First, from a formal standpoint, the appeal is signed only by the husband "p.o." (by proxy), without a power of attorney from the wife attached. However, the Federal Supreme Court has decided not to set a deadline to rectify this defect, as the outcome of the appeal is already determined on other grounds.
Second, on the merits, the appellants raise several grievances without providing the necessary reasoning:
- They allege that the cantonal tax authority was not represented by an authorized person, yet they fail to cite any legal basis or demonstrate how this would render the decision void.
- They implicitly request the recusal of a cantonal judge due to her investigative actions, but fail to demonstrate how her impartiality was compromised (violation ofArt. 30 para. 1 Cst.) or that they raised this objection in a timely manner before the cantonal authority.
- They invoke the principle of res judicata, but provide absolutely no explanation as to how their 2019 tax assessment had already been definitively settled.
Third, and decisively, regarding the deduction of medical expenses, the appellants engage in no discussion with the central reasoning of the Cantonal Court. They do not attempt to demonstrate, with supporting evidence, that the lower court's assessment of the facts was arbitrary or that it violated the law by requiring proof that the expenses were not covered by insurance. Their criticisms are purely appellate in nature and rely on irrelevant arguments, such as an appeal to "customary law." Consequently, they fail to demonstrate how the Cantonal Court's establishment of facts or application of the law was erroneous.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that the appeal is manifestly insufficiently reasoned on all points.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal.
The decision is rendered via simplified proceedings in accordance with Art. 108 para. 1 let. b LTF. 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
